You have everything turned around, despite our having explained it to you over and over again.
Are you a theistic evolution? If you are, you believe in the Creator. If not, you must prove the origin of everything.
Are you kidding us? There is no such requirement for us! You are the one making a claim, not us, so you need to support that claim, not us! That means that if you insist on "the Creator", then YOU are required to prove that Creator. Our refusal to accept your unsupported claims prima facie is due to your not having made your case.
Stop trying to foist your work onto us, you stupid gold-bricking asshole! It's your job, not ours, SO DO YOUR OWN WORK!
Don't attempt to use God's creation for your own worldview.
We're not. Especially since your "God's creation" is completely made-up and contrary to reality. That is because, as a creationist, you deny the natural universe and try to replace it with your imagined "God's creation".
As I have already explained to you, a person who believed in actual Creation would see the universe as the natural part of The Creation. That is what science studies and has learned very much about. But creationists' "God's creation" is completely different from The Creation and, since The Creation (AKA Reality) conflicts with their "God's creation", they reject The Creation and replace it with their "God's creation", actually teaching that if The Creation is what we find instead of their "God's creation", then that would disprove God.
So, our own worldview incorporates the natural universe which an actual believer in Creation (ie, as opposed to a creationist) would accept as part of The Creation, and which has nothing whatsoever to do with your stupid made-up "God's creation."
Why do you constantly present such stupid bullshit?
I will understand if you cannot answer about the origin of life.
Again, just what the exact fuck is the origin of life supposed to have to do with anything? Especially with evolution?
However, what you are doing is an extremely dishonest creationist tactic that I call "throwing 'unanswerable' questions' at us." Your "question" is intended to intimidate your opponent and scare him off, or at the very least to kill the discussion. Another term for it would be "deflect and evade", since it's used to avoid having to answer the questions that you need to address.
An interesting feature of such "questions" is that you have no interest whatsoever in getting an answer. I know the very well from a years-long correspondence with a creationist who did nothing but throw one "unanswerable" question after another at me, almost all of which I did answer. He would insist that he very much wanted to know the answer, but then when I did answer it and tried to discuss my answer with him he would lose all interest and either run away or change the subject with yet another "unanswerable" question.
And you do exactly the same thing: when we answer your questions you refuse to even look at it (eg, your whiney little bitch complaint that your fucking stupid phone is too tiny to read anything on). So if you never intend to even look at our answers, why do you keep posting the questions?
In the meantime, the questions we ask you are ones that we do really want the answers to. Plus, they are not unanswered, but rather they are questions that you should be fully capable of answering. Questions like: "What are you talking about?" or "What do you think evolution is?" Simple questions that you really should be able to answer and yet you constantly refuse to answer those simple answerable questions.
ABE: {
A common feature of creationists constant attempts to stymie us with their "unanswerable" questions is that answering those questions requires extensive subject matter expertise which very few members of the general public possess. That means that you are deliberately targeting people who will not be able to answer your "questions".
Indeed, when we have seen creationists actively avoid subject matter experts (eg, in the ozone-layer claim, that creationist claimed have sought out the "experts" who could explain how heavy chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) molecules could get to the stratosphere, but instead of asking the real experts on atmospheric dynamics say at NOAA, the "experts" he chose were high volume air conditioning (HVAC) systems salesmen at a trade show -- seriously, that's exactly what he did!). And if they do encounter a subject matter expert, then they make sure to throw "unanswerable" questions at him that are outside his area of expertise. A clear and unambiguous demonstration of their deliberately calculated dishonesty.
And your own practice of that same grossly dishonest practice is duly noted, along with its deleterious effects on everything else you post on all subjects. IOW, your credibility is so low that you have hit rock bottom, and you have started to dig even lower.
And that does not even address what it would mean for someone who is NOT a subject matter expert to be unable to answer one of your "questions." You seem to believe that that would disprove "evolution" (ie, your strawman boogeyman that has nothing to do with evolution), whereas instead all it would mean was that that person lacked the required expertise.It would have absolutely no effect on whatever it is that you're opposing (you really do need to tell us what you think evolution is; ie, what the fuck are you talking about?) and it would do absolutely nothing to support your own position.
A few examples:
If you are unable to explain to us in detail exactly how the TCP/IP protocol suite works, would that prove that the Internet does not exist? Of course not, despite what you might believe!
If you are unable to explain to us in detail the complete build process for C, would that prove that computer applications written in C could not possibly exist let alone work. Of course not!
So just what the fuck do you think you are trying to accomplish with your stupid creationist deceptive tricks? What are you trying to accomplish with your lies and gross dishonesty?
Worse, just which god do you worship whom you can only serve with lies and deception? Christian doctrine identifies your god by the name of "Satan".
}
You fucking hypocrite! You have demonstrated that you know nothing about Christian doctrine, but if you did you would be very aware of how much Jesus hated you hypocrites.
Re:Candle3 Shows He Has No Clue What Evolution Is ... AGAIN
***You are those one of those who claim that evolution is a fact. I am simply telling you that is bull----.
You only say that because you believe in bullshit lies about what evolution is. You just proved that you have no clue what evolution is (see below), so how could you possibly be able to evaluate it?
Rather, it is creationism (not to be confused with Creation since creationism denies The Creation) that is complete and utter bullshit. Creation is nothing but lies because its mission is to replace The Creation with an imaginary contrary-to-reality world (eg, young earth) for which there is no evidence, so all they have to work with are LIES.
You are the purveyor of bullshit. Please pull your head out of your ass and LEARN SOMETHING!
As promised above, here is the iron-clad proof that you don't know diddley squat about evolution:
All we witness is that humans reproduce humans; cats reproduce cats; and dogs reproduce dogs, etc.... just as Genesis stated. It has always been this way.
You think that that is an argument against evolution, that a dog given birth to kittens would disprove evolution, but such an impossible event would not only disprove evolution but also almost everything we know about biology.
What you falsely claim that evolution teaches is the exact OPPOSITE of what evolution actually teaches.Evolution teaches that the offspring of any parents of a given species will still be of the same species. And even when a population evolves into a different species it will still be the same "kind" as its ancestors: You cannot evolve out of your clade (with clade being the closest thing we can think of to a creationist's "kind").
The only true thing that you say in your message is: "It has always been this way". So why do you insist on lying about it?
The fact that we cannot evolve out of our clade(s) is explained very well by Clint of Clint's Reptiles (a believing Christian and evolutionary biologist):
Watch it this time AND LEARN SOMETHING!.
An example would be the first population of mammals, which branched out and diversified into an enormous number of very different species, including dogs and cats and humans, ALL OF WHICH ARE STILL MAMMALS! Not only that, but we are still all amniotes (a more general group including reptiles) and tetrapods (possessing four limbs) and vertebrates (backbone) and chordates (spinal cord) and deuterostomes.
That is what evolution says and teaches regardless of your lies to the contrary. Why are you so willfully stupid that you cannot understand that?
Evolution is simply a mind game for those who do not want to give thanks to their Creator.
Christianity is simply a mind game for those who do not want to give thanks to Vishnu.
Evolution is science. Science works out how things work. You may as well denounce your phone's users manual for being anti-Christian because it doesn't tell you that your particular god and not other god must be worshipped in order for the phone to work. Probably a bad example since you would be stupid enough to think that if you didn't say the right prayers to your god then your phone won't work.
Does your willful idiocy know no bounds?
Nothing points to evolution.
All the evidence does point to evolution. You just don't know what evolution is, so you cannot understand the evidence.
Rather, nothing point to whatever stupid fake bullshit nonsense you misidentify (or just plain lie about) as "evolution".
Seriously, WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Because nobody can make any sense out of the stupid bullshit you keep posting.
Now turn to, mister, and answer Zucadragon's question!
Re: Re:Candle3 Shows He Has No Clue What Evolution Is ... AGAIN
The theory of evolution has not contributed to actual science in any way. Evolution is nothing more than a misguided worldview.
Since you know nothing about evolution, how could you possibly make such an assessment?
Exactly HOW did you determine that "The theory of evolution has not contributed to actual science in any way"?IN DETAIL!
Evolution is nothing more than a misguided worldview.
Evolution is not any kind of worldview, so your statement is complete and utter nonsense.
If you are not just idly lying yet again and actually believe that evolution is a worldview, then explain to us exactly how and why it is a world view, IN DETAIL!
Your refusal to answer that question will be evidence that even you know that you are lying your ass off.
Do your willful idiocy AND DELIBERATE MENDACITY know no bounds?
More deflection, let's try it again, I'll have to simplify it because you obviously don't understand the question, you said:
Unless one believe the fairy tale that life and consciousness leached from a rock. This is your fairy tail, it has nothing to do with evolution or abiogenesis. Prove me wrong, show me any kind of scientific source that states this. If not, concede that no scientist claims this and this is just your own fabrication.
Maybe then we can move on and go in depth on some of your other bullshit, but not before you give an actual honest answer to this query about your statement. Let me repeat it
{long rant filled with completely and utterly stupid creationists lies THAT HAVE BEEN REFUTED A THOUSAND TIMES, but Candle3 is too willfully stupid to see through the lies}
Nothing you just posted has any truth to it. None at all! And we have explained them to you over and over and over and over again! And you are always too willfully stupid and stubbornly ignorant to ever learn anything. Far worse, your false religion (not to be confused with actual Christianity) instills in you such fear of the truth that you must force yourself to be too willfully stupid and stubbornly ignorant to ever learn the truth.Read Matt 7:20: you are the wicked fruit produced by the wicked tree that is your religion and that proves that your religion is false and must be cut down and thrown into the fire.
Fun fact: up to 80% of children raised as fundamentalist Christians grow up to reject religion altogether (creationist Mr. Kent Hovind cites that figure at 75%). Why are those churches hemorrhaging their next generation? The churches themselves are clueless, but you can learn why by reading the testimonials in ex-Christian forums.
One factor is that all those kids were raised on creationist lies. Guess what happens when those kids grow up and start learning real science: they realize that their churches, creationist teachers, and even their own parents had lied to them their entire lives so they reject everything they had been taught by those liars. While many become atheists, some remain Christian though not fundamentalist, and maybe an extremely few remain fundamentalists, but none of them remain creationists! As I recall, many forum members here used to be young-earth creationists (YECs) and, having since learned the truth, are now strong opponents to YEC. Are you starting to see a pattern here? (of course not, since your head is too firmly wedged up your ass)
Raise your kids on lies and you will lose them when they learn the truth. What part of that are you too willfully stupid to understand?
Now something for the others, since you are too willfully ignorant and too terrified of learning anything to bother to even look at it:
{various stupid creationist lies about the Grand Canyon, including:} There were a 1000 cubic miles of debris removed from the GC. How come there is none of this found at the mouth of the river?
From the talk.origins Index of Creationist Claims, Claim CD210:
Claim CD210:Claim CD210:
There is nowhere near enough sediment deposited at the mouth of the Colorado River to account for ten million years worth of erosion.
Response:
The Colorado River delta itself is quite extensive. It covers 3,325 square miles (Sykes 1937) and is up to 3.5 miles deep (Jennings and Thompson 1986), containing over 10,000 cubic miles of the Colorado River's sediments from the last two to three million years. The sediments that were deposited by the river more than two to three million years ago have been shifted northwestward by movement along the San Andreas and related faults (Winker and Kidwell 1986). Sediments have also accumulated elsewhere. Some were deposited in flood plains between the delta and the Grand Canyon.
Wind is a major erosional force in parts of the Colorado River basin. Some sediments from Colorado and Wyoming were blown as far as the Atlantic Ocean.
Much of the strata exposed in the Grand Canyon are limestone and dolomite. These rocks eventually simply would have dissolved.
References:
Jennings, S. and G. R. Thompson, 1986. Diagensis of Plio-Pleistocene sediments of the Colorado River Delta, southern California. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 56(1): 89-98.
Sykes, G., 1937. The Colorado River Delta. American Geographical Society Special Publication 19, New York: American Geographical Society.
Winker, C. D. and S. M. Kidwell, 1986. Paleocurrent evidence for lateral displacement of the Pliocene Colorado River Delta by the San Andreas fault system, southeastern California. Geology 14(9): 788-791.
The Colorado River delta contains over 10,000 cubic miles of the river's sediments (Response 1), and Candle3 is trying to claim we cannot account for 1,000 cubic miles?
And he has the gall to take umbrage at us for calling him out as being such a stupid fucking idiot?
The Grand Canyon was created suddenly by the retreating waters of Noah's Flood.
Source:
Austin, Steve, 1995. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Santee, CA: Inst. for Creation Research.
Response:
We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:
a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
streamlined relict islands.
The Scablands in Washington state were produced by such a flood and show such features (Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985). Such features are also seen on Mars at Kasei Vallis and Ares Vallis (Baker 1978; NASA Quest n.d.). They do not appear in the Grand Canyon. Compare relief maps of the two areas to see for yourself.
The same flood that was supposed to carve the Grand Canyon was also supposed to lay down the miles of sediment (and a few lava flows) from which the canyon is carved. A single flood cannot do both. Creationists claim that the year of the Flood included several geological events, but that still stretches credulity.
The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d.). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.
Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.
The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.
Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon. A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.
Sediment from the Colorado River has been shifted northward over the years by movement along the San Andreas and related faults (Winker and Kidwell 1986). Such movement of the delta sediment would not occur if the canyon were carved as a single event.
The lakes that Austin proposed as the source for the carving floodwaters are not large compared with the Grand Canyon itself. The flood would have to remove more material than the floodwaters themselves.
If a brief interlude of rushing water produced the Grand Canyon, there should be many more such canyons. Why are there not other grand canyons surrounding all the margins of all continents?
There is a perfectly satisfactory gradual explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon that avoids all these problems. Sediments deposited about two billion years ago were metamorphosed and intruded by granite to become today's basement layers. Other sediments were deposited in the late Proterozoic and were subsequently folded, faulted, and eroded. More sediments were deposited in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, with a period of erosion in between. The Colorado Plateau started rising gradually about seventy million years ago. As it rose, existing rivers deepened, carving through the previous sediments (Harris and Kiver 1985, 273-282).
Harris, D. V. and E. P. Kiver, 1985. The Geologic Story of the National Parks and Monuments. New York: Wiley.
Waitt, R. B. Jr., 1985. Case for periodic, colossal jökulhlaups from Pleistocene glacial Lake Missoula. Geological Society of America Bulletin 96: 1271-1286.
Winker, C. D., and S. M. Kidwell, 1986. Paleocurrent evidence for lateral displacement of the Pliocene Colorado River delta by the San Andreas fault system, southeastern California. Geology 14: 788-791.
Further Reading:
Allen, J. A., M. Burns and S. C. Sargent, 1986. Cataclysms on the Columbia. Portland, OR: Timber Press.
Beus, S. S. and M. Morales (eds.), 2002. Grand Canyon Geology, 2nd edition. London: Oxford University Press. (technical)
It should be clear to everyone that the Canyon was formed from the runoff of a global flood, with water escaping from the large water basin North and East of the canyon.
We know exactly what such an event should produce, BECAUSE WE SEE IT IN THE CHANNELED SCABLANDS. And what that kind of event produces looks nothing at all like the Grand Canyon.
Jessica H. Christ! Pull your head out of your ass and LEARN SOMETHING!
But of course Candle3 will never pull his head out and learn anything. Sadly, it's against his religion to learn the truth.
Paula Poundstone:
"It is true that the wages of sin is death. But after all the deductions and withholdings, all you're left with is feeling really tired."
Edited by dwise1, : added signature line at bottom
Creationist know how the universe was started. We know how and when all life was created. We know the purpose of the creation, and we know how it will end.
Oh, there you go with that lie again! And now you've doubled down on it!
OK, you claim to know HOW the universe and life came into existence. SO TELL US HOW! IN DETAIL!
And know that just echolala'ing "goddidit!" IS NEVER AN EXPLAINATION OF HOW!
"goddidit" is nothing more than an appeal to God of the Gaps, a flimsy coverup of the fact that you do not know.
Your explanation of HOW must include a complete description of the processes involved IN DETAIL (which is only fair since you constantly demand detailed explanations of us). That explanation must include descriptions of all processes involved, both natural and supernatural, and descriptions of exactly what role they played at every stage and step of each process involved, including the precise interplay between all those processes -- the interface and interplay between the supernatural and natural would be very interesting to learn about.
Of course, no human could possibly possess that kind of knowledge. No human could possibly possess any knowledge at all of any aspect of the supernatural, including whether the supernatural even exists. AND YET YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY CLAIMED TO POSSESS SUCH IMPOSSIBLE KNOWLEDGE!So reveal it to us, already!
You possess no such knowledge and you know that you do not. In claiming to possess such knowledge, you are knowingly lying to us! I challenged you on this before and you ran away! Now you are lying to us yet again so I am challenging you on it yet again!And, caught yet again in your lie, you will run away yet again!
Instead of constantly lying, just tell the truth. What the fuck is wrong with you? Has your false religion corrupted you so much that you think you would burst into flames if you ever even thought of turning to the truth?
Just to make the requirements clear (not that you would ever read this part):
You see (or should see if you had a functioning brain), the answer to a HOW question must include an actual description of HOW it works or happened. Responding with stating whodunnit does NOT answer a HOW question.
For example, if we ask, "How did a Model T automobile work?", you simply saying "Henry Ford" would not even begin to answer our question. Instead, you would need to describe and explain the internal combustion engine and how its generated power is transferred through the power train to the wheels. Simple saying "Henry Ford" or "Karl Benz" would answer none of that.
Nor does invoking an unknown process tell us anything. I offered such an example before. When we saw our first pocket electronic calculator circa 1968 and wondered HOW it worked, my father "answered" that question by saying, "It uses chips." Of course, he had no idea what "chips" were nor how they worked. Nor did I even though I had seen a film in junior high school about integrated circuit manufacturing (I didn't understand at the time what photography had to do with it). But since then, I learned in my junior college electronics textbook (a very good resource for its descriptions of how components work and how to calculate their electrical values; eg, calculate the capacitance of a capacitor) how the components of an IC circuit work as well as a review of how they are manufactured. But that's only explains HOW an IC works, not HOW a calculator works. That I learned in US Air Force Electronic Computer Systems Repairman tech school (3ABR30554) where we were training in the intimate details of the workings of a computer CPU.
THAT is the level of detail you would need to meet in explaining to us HOW the universe or life began supernaturally. "goddidit" just does not cut it and it never would.
If you refuse to 'fess up to your lie, then you must deliver the goods.
Your only response is to pile bullshit upon bullshit upon more bullshit.
You have already proven to us that nothing you post can be assumed to be true. You have done this by posting known and provable falsehoods about things that we are able to test and verify. To quote philosopher of science, Larry Laudan, whom creationist Dr. Duane Gish made the mistake of praising without bothering to read his entire article (a common creationist failing):
Larry Laudan:In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests.
(I will repost below the more complete quote that I had posted in Message 140 on 19-Nov-2007)
So far you have consistently lied about everything that we are able to check, so why should we believe anything you say that we are not able to check?Since you lie incessantly about that which we can test and verify, why should we believe that you would suddenly become truthful about things that are impossible to test?
In the words of that great American philosopher, PFC Gomer Pyle:
Gomer Pyle:Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!
IOW, through your incessantly lying and display of crass dishonesty, you have thoroughly destroyed your credibility. Just as with Trump, we can safely assume that every word that comes from your mouth is a lie, since 99.999% of the time we would be right.
You never did answer Percy's question to you which he asked repeatedly:
My question about how you might better persuade people that abortion is murder was meant to encourage you to rethink your approach in light of the information in the opening post. You instead continued on the same path. The topic in this thread isn't abortion. Abortion is fine as a working example of something you'd like to persuade people about, but this thread is about how most effectively to persuade. How might you modify your reply to me to better persuade?
Have you forgotten that you're trying to persuade us that you have the proper view of modern medicine and they don't?
The answer to his question is that your persistant lying and dishonesty has made it impossible for you to convince any person capable of thought about anything.
There was a humor file about the many ways to shoot yourself in the foot with various programming languages. One language (¿BASIC?) was likened to a water pistol with which you keep shooting your foot until it becomes waterlogged, rots, and drops off. That feels suitably metaphoric for how you have shot off both your feet.
Share and enjoy!
As promised above, from Message 140 (19-Nov-2007):
even if you could show the current models wrong, that adds NO support to the Creationist model
Even if evolution was shown to be wrong, evolutionists in general would be more likely to go for anything other than the creation model because they don't appear to want to have anything to do with the creation possibility.Creation is written off a priori by definitions of science designed to avoid that possibility.There's something about a creator that causes the majority of mankind to become willfully blind.
You completely missed the point there. For all these decades, the creationist approach has been to create a False Dichotomy (AKA "a 'false dilemma'") which artificially and deceptively claimed that there are two and only two mutually exclusive choices such that disproving one would automatically prove the other. Then all that the creationists would do was to attack their strawman caricature called "the evolution model" and thus claim that their own "creation model" had been proven, all without ever having to present this "creation model" or any evidence for it, or discuss their "model" or in any manner try to support it. Indeed, I have found that the surest way to anger a creationist was to take his claims at face value and try to discuss them with him and try to get him to support them. Incredible how utterly hostile they would become because somebody was trying to take them seriously.
No, the point that you missed is that every model put forth must stand on its own merit. Each model must be examined and judged according to the evidence. Just because one model is eliminated does not make another model right; each model must be examined.
Therefore, even if you were able to show evolution to be wrong, that would do absolutely nothing to show your "creation model" to be right. Your "creation model" would still need to be examined and tested, just like all the other models. As pointed out by philosopher of science Larry Laudan in his article that Dr. Duane Gish thought was so great, the claims of creationism have indeed been tested and they have been found to be wrong.
From "Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern" by Larry Laudan, from Science, Technology and Human Values 7, no. 41 (1982):16-19, reprinted on pages 351-355 of Michael Ruse's But Is It Science. It refers to McLean v. Arkansas, the famous 1981 Creationism trial; my copy of the article provided to me by Dr. Duane Gish:
quote:At various key points in the Opinion, Creationism is charged with being untestable, dogmatic (and thus non-tentative), and unfalsifiable. All three charges are of dubious merit. For instance, to make the interlinked claims that Creationism is neither falsifiable nor testable is to assert that Creationism makes no empirical assertions whatever. This is surely false. Creationists make a wide range of testable assertions about empirical matters of fact. Thus, as Judge Overton himself grants (apparently without seeing its implications), the creationists say that the earth is of very recent origin (say 6,000 to 20,000 years old); they argue that most of the geological features of the earth's surface are diluvial in character (i.e., products of the postulated worldwide Noachian deluge); they are committed to a large number of factual historical claims with which the Old Testament is replete; they assert the limited variability of species. They are committed to the view that, since animals and man were created at the same time, the human fossil record must be paleontologically co-extensive with the record of lower animals. It is fair to say that no one has shown how to reconcile such claims with the available evidence- evidence which speaks persuasively to a long earth history, among other things.
In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests.
The only reason for rejecting young-earth creationism is because the claims of creationism have been tested and have been found to fail those tests. In other words, that dog won't hunt.
But if you are so absolutely sure that there is a real creation model with "voluminous evidence in its favour", then do please present it.
BTW, ever since 2007 and long before that no creationist has ever presented a real creation model with "voluminous evidence in its favour". Far worse than that, no creationist has ever even tried to.
So since we can eliminate creationism, what's the only alternative. Creationists say that would be "evolution and atheism", but is that true? Of course not! That would be just yet another creationist lie.
Point me to your source for it, and seeing as scientist supposedly believe this to you, you must have a scientific source of any kind that shows this.
Of course, he has no scientific source but rather solely creationist sources which present crude caricatures of "scientific sources". Ie, his creationist sources all lie about what scientists say.
The reason why creationists must constantly lie is because their position is contrary to reality such that they believe they must disprove reality in order to prove their god. Needing evidence disproving reality, they can find no actual evidence (Seriously, how could reality possibly provide actual evidence against itself? Outside of an introductory philosophy course, that is.), so they have no other recourse but to lie about everything, including making up false stuff.
BTW, if reality is the result of supernatural creation, then it would constitute The Creation (or at the very least the natural component thereof).That would mean that creationism opposes The Creation and tries to disprove The Creation and replace it with their own false narrative. Which makes creationism anti-Creation.
The particular dishonest method that Candle3 is using (besides refusing to support his own claims) is misrepresenting science through gross caricature: Take a scientific idea, reduce it to and replace it with an over-simplified ridiculous summary statement, a caricature (such as the one in question here), insist that that caricature is the defining statement of that scientific idea, and attack that strawman caricature instead of the actual idea.
The problems with Candle3's method of attack are many and easily recognized; eg, strawmaning, using a form of reductio ad absurdum which is appeal to ridicule:
Appeal to Ridicule:Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a multi-layered circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace event or to another irrelevant thing based on comedic timing, or wordplay. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or position, attempting to inspire a strong emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by mocking the argument's representative foundation in an uncharitable and oversimplified way. The person using the tactic is often sarcastic in their argument.
Creationists resort to that dishonest ploy constantly. They especially avoid actual scientific publication of their target, but instead look for a scientist engaged in casual conversation or a non-scientific presentation where one is not constantly meticulous about wording (or in the case of the Colin Patterson misrepresentation where he was in an exchange of ideas involving hypotheticals) in a for a metaphoric statement or analogy that they can then misrepresent as "what scientists believe".
For example, we could use the same technique to prove that "electronicists" (atheistic idiots who believe in electronics) believe that "electronic devices are made of sand put together by photography", the very idea of which is so ridiculous that electronics could never work. We do extract silicon from sand and we do use photography to control the etching of and infusing of impurities into that silicon to create the integrated circuits, but obviously insisting that "electonicists" believe that "smartphones are made of sand and photography" is a lie by intention.
Everything creationists say is a lie. Besides being a creationist himself, Candle3 relies entirely on creationist sources, which contain nothing but lies. Therefore, everything he posts is a lie.
Candle3 is a creationist, so he will never come clean and behave honestly. He's like the scorpion in the over-used fable of the frog and the scorpion: he will always lie because it is in his nature.
Zuc, your problem is to show how life arose from non-life.
Why? And what can we conclude from a non-expert "man on the street" not being able to answer a highly technical question that requires expertise in that field? Simply that we expecting expert answers from non-experts is a foolish expectation practiced by idiots. Such idiots as you.
Besides, you already know that abiogensis has nothing to do with evolution. So why do you continue to practice this deception?
The low of biogenesis is firm and immovable.
As opposed to the "high of biogenesis"?
You still understand nothing of scientific laws. They were a summary statement of observations while apply only under certain circumstances outside of which they no longer apply. For example, the gas laws only apply under the conditions of standard temperature and pressure. Kepler's Laws of planetary motion only apply for two-body problems and in the absence of relativistic effects (eg, the perihelion of Mercury's orbit).
The "Law of Biogenesis" only applies under current conditions, which include the life existing already and ready to devour any new organic compounds that may come into existence ("What do you call newly formed precursors of life? Food!). Also, it is applied against the idea of spontaneous generation of entire organisms (eg, mice or fly maggots) and was never intended to apply to abiogenesis.
Please stop misapplying it. The first step would be for you to reject a central teaching of your religion AND LEARN SOMETHING.
Do you acknowledge the Creator?
Well, we know that YOU DON'T!
You are a creationist. Creationists are opposed to The Creation and hence also The Creator in their crusade to replace The Creation with their false contrary-to-reality narrative and The Creator with their own pathetic false god.
In the meantime, DO YOUR JOB! You made an assertion, so it is YOUR responsibility to support it.
Still with your stupid "prove how life started" bullshit?
YOU are the one claiming that evolution depends on abiogenesis, NOT US! The two are not connected! We have explained that to you over and over and over and OVER AND OVER AND O*V*E*R AGAINand you are still too WILLFULLY STUPID to understand such a simple and straightforward fact?
Seriously, what is WRONG WITH YOU?
When we make a statement or an assertion, then we support it.
But when you make an assertion, YOU DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE (and even impossible) TO AVOID SUPPORTING YOUR OWN ASSERTION!
Change is observable, but the propaganda that universities are spewing out is not observable.
Wow, you really have no clue at all what you are talking about. You don't know what is taught in the universities nor how. Have you ever attended college? In the sciences? At a post-graduate level (ie, beyond a bachelor's degree)?
Here's a video in which the creationist calling in to Forrest Valkai and Erika "Gutsick Gibbon" makes your same ignorant claim about universities being dogmatic, etc:
The creationist makes that claim around the 23:20 mark, though what Forrest has to say winding up around 22:45 is also good.
Both Forrest and Erika are in the middle of and deeply involved in their post-graduate studies in science (Forrest on his sixth degree and Erika on her doctorate). They describe to the creationist in detail how university studies in the sciences works, and how research works, and how the evidence works.
You keep demanding DETAILED answers. Well, here's your chance! Watch that video (Oh look! I even provided you a LINK to that video, something that you would never do for us!) and have your questions answered.
Of course, you're too willfully ignorant (and very willfully stupid about it), so you will run away from it yet again. But others who are not afraid of learning something should find it interesting.
Not only do they describe how they are trained in critical thinking ("College doesn't teach you what to think, but rather how to think." A corollary is that they teach you how to learn.). That is accomplished by having you read many scientific articles and to analyze them, finding what they did wrong and having you suggest improvements, etc. Erika especially gets into how the scientific method works in practice and how the fossil record is studied and analyzed.
Seriously, it is one of their best videos. And surprisingly the creationist is respectful enough (for a welcome change) to hear them out, even though he never stops trying to project his own faults and failings upon science (which he knows nothing about -- he did get a BA but refused to divulge his major, and Forrest described what his "1000-level" science classes had taught him (the bare essentials) and how post-graduate study goes way beyond that).
Did I mention that this is a very good video that we can learn a lot from. Well, except for those who are too willfully ignorant and whose faith demands they possess zero knowledge.
Instead of trying to deflect and evade by posting ever more steaming piles of stupid creationist bullshit :
JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!
All you're telling us is how dishonest you are and how false your religion is.
And how completely and stupidly ignorant you are that you are completely incapable of answering a simple direct question.
What the fuck is so completely wrong with you?
PS
If you knew anything at all, you would realize that relying on complexity arguments is a very stupid mistake to make.
We know from every experiment using evolutionary processes that the results they produce are very complex, irreducibly even. In my decades-long career as an Intelligent Designer, every single time we used an evolutionary approach to maintaining a product, its complexity would grow exponentially.
Therefore, if something in nature is highly complex, then that is a sure sign that it had evolved.
PPS
But, I understand. The ability of Satan to deceive is also amazing
No, you do not understand since you persist in projecting your own faults onto others.
You are the one who serves Satan through your incessant lies.
You fucking lying dishonest deceiving stupid idiot!
There you go yet again demanding what we answer "questions" that are designed to be impossible to answer. "Questions" that demand extremely detailed step-by-step descriptions requiring complete knowledge that no non-expert could possibly be expected to possess. Are you going to deny that? You just now did it TWICE in each of your two "questions".
And yet you steadfastly refuse to answer a simple question, one that is intended to be easy for you to answer, you hypocritical piece of shit! Here is that simple question yet again:
"Remaining on topic, why do you think you’re not succeeding in convincing anyone?"
Why are you so terrified of that simple easy-to-answer question that you are driven to post long streams of stupid bullshit lies just in order to avoid that question? Is it because even you realize that you are too stupid to answer it? Or is it because you never had any intention of trying to convince us of anything (except for your fervent devotion to serving Satan through lies), but are nothing but a stupid piece-of-shit troll?
For the edification of everybody else since you are you willfully stupid to understand any of it, if a non-expert is unable to answer your impossible "questions", all that says is that that individual could not answer it. It says nothing at all about the thing being asked about. You cannot explain step-by-step in detail how electronics work, how integrated circuits work (and are designed and manufactured), how communications channels work, nor how the Internet works, but none of your inability has any effect on the fact that they do work nor that there are many experts to do understand how they work. If you want to know how anything works, then ask an expert instead of falsely declaring that those experts do not exist.
Besides, even if we were to answer your stupid "questions", you would never read our answers, let alone even just look at them.We know that for a solid fact because that is exactly what you have done each and every time. So your insistence on answers to your stupid "questions" is nothing but hypocritical dishonesty, you fucking stupid asshole! Especially when the entire evolution of playing your stupid games would be for naught.
You are not the only stupid lying creationist we have ever encountered. Each of us individuallyliterally have decades of experience with creationists and they all pull the same stupid tricks as they practice their deceptions. You are no different nor do you present anything new, anything that we haven't already refuted a thousand times over -- hence PRATT, Points Refuted AThousand Times. It's like a bad zombie movie where we have to slay the already slain thousands of times and yet they keep coming lumbering back.
Stargate SG-1 200:
"Zombies have been done to death."
The only difference between you and the other creationists is that you are far more stupid than they are. Unlike other creationists, you are completely impervious to learning anything. Other creationists are at least able to learn which of their false claims to stop using when that claim has been refuted to their face: "if the claim is proven to not work, then stop using it." Usually, they tailor that lesson to specific opponents; eg:
When the opponent has refuted that claim to the creationist's face.
When the opponent has demonstrated that he is knowledgeable about the subject matter.
For example, I was in a 20-year correspondence with a young-earth creationist (YEC) who explicitly identified himself as a YEC with the story of having converted because of YEC. Yet in all that time, I could never get him to discuss any young-earth claims. Indeed, he would go out of his way to avoid any discussion of young-earth claims. With me! I have no doubt that he had no such qualms with victims who lacked my knowledge of YEC claims. Indeed, he would be merciless in his bullying of those who were unknowledgeable, but as soon as he realized he was facing someone with even an ounce of brains he would immediately shift to being extremely obsequious and use flattery to avoid discussion.
The difference is that you are too appallingly stupid to learn when a claim not only does not work for you, but it actually works against you. You are too abysmally stupid to be able to learn anything, not even what every other creationist is able to learn.
So why are you so incredibly stupid about everything? Is it due to the brain damage your stupid false religion is inflicting on you? Why don't you try a completely different religion instead, like Christianity? (even that turkey of a religion is far better than whatever stupid crap you're hooked on)
You run your mouth as though doing so makes you look really intelligent. Let me tell you that it doesn't work.
No, I am trying to get through to a stupid fucking idiot, YOU. An idiot so incredibly stupid that you do not know anything -- as you constantly demonstrate -- so I have to explain everything to you.
The reason why it doesn't work is because you are a brainless idiot. So brainless that RFK Jr's brain worm would have starved immediately inside your hollow cranium (instead of having a little something to feed on as in his case).
But while you are a hopeless case, others are able to learn from my explanations.
¡YET AGAIN! you try to deflect and evade having to answer a simple direct question! That question is and continues to be and will always be Percy's repeatedly asked:
"Remaining on topic, why do you think you’re not succeeding in convincing anyone?"
Why are you so completely and utterly terrified of that question?
Stop with your stupid bullshit and JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!
Why is that so impossibly hard for you?
***I have already asked if you believe in theistic evolution. It is a simple question. Yes or no.
I already answered that question, you fucking idiot! If you were to ever bother to read anything then you would already know that I told you "no."
Again, what the fuck is to incredibly wrong with you that your brain is completely non-functional most of the time?
This is what is wrong with me.
That you are incredibly stupid, don't know anything, feed on nothing but lies, etc. OK.
We already know all that since you demonstrate your failings constantly. But what we don't understand is how and why you had degenerated to such a pitifully low state of near-existence in the first place.
Perhaps that could serve others as an example of what to avoid in order to not sink to the same low depths of depravity as you have.
™ Version 4.2
(1)