Why are we so bad at this?

Here we go again. If all you can do is run scared away from every single question, then why be here? Go back to your church's suck-circle and spend your days there safely ensconced from reality.But if you insist on venturing out into the real world, then reality will be in your face 24/7/365.2425. In the real world, there is no escape from reality. And part of facing reality is facing and answering questions.So if you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the real world. So, yet again we have a chain of messages with you screwing up left, right, and upside down as you try to run away scared from simple questions.This time we're trying to hold you accountable for your lie about "atheists believe the cell created itself" and you keep running away.Of course, part of your problem is that you are simply too stupid to keep your lies straight. Another part of your problem might have been uncovered by Percy: So then it seems that you do truly know nothing at all, but rather all you do is Google for random nonsense that you then copy-and-paste without knowing what it says or even bothering to read it. Far worse than typical creationist ignorance of their own claims, you quite literally have absolutely no clue what you are talking about! The reason why you constantly run away from questions is both because you don't know how to begin and, far worse, you don't even know enough to be able to understand the question.If you are too willfully ignorant and too willfully stupid to even understand the questions, then you are in very serious trouble.Seriously, does your religion really require you to be so abso-fucking-lutely stupid? In college, did everybody stare at you like you were a freak? Well, you were ... and you still are. So the message chain, which you will still refuse to read, but others will see what's happening: Summary: so in order to evade the issue of you posting nothing but bullshit, lies, nonsense, and just plain idiocy, and after having said the stupidest things possible, you say something even stupider.So you proved my point by saying something even stupider, making the stupid lie that your opponents (and specifically me) believe the modern cell had created itself.
​
My reply to that lie was: We don't say that nor do we believe it. Rather, you do!And you have not replied to my reply, but then what else is different?Percy's reply to your nonsense: Even though Percy directly quoted you, you were unable to understand what he was talking about: You pretend to not understand Percy in order to change the subject away from the issue of your false claim about believing the cell had created itself. Couldn't be any clearer than that, right? But nothing can get through to you:

Guardians of the Galaxy:

---

Peter Quill: It's just a metaphor, dude.
Rocket Raccoon: His people are completely literal. Metaphors go over his head.
Drax the Destroyer: *Nothing* goes over my head...! My reflexes are too fast, I would catch it.

---

At least Drax had redeeming qualities, unlike you.So instead of facing the issue, you double down on the lie: Dude! Nobody says "the cell created itself" EXCEPT FOR STUPID LYING CREATIONISTSWhy do you keep saying that, YOU STUPID LYING CREATIONIST?Dishonesty is an article of faith for creationists. You are the pot called the silverware black.The only question with you, you stupid lying creationist, is whether we could call your dishonesty "intellectual". So far for the past SEVEN YEARS you have yet to display any hint of an intellect.You are still a stupid fucking lying idiot. Work on it! 

Again, not the topic, but no one in science believes this. Do you think repeating your misstatements of simple facts is an effective persuasion technique?--Percy

We've gone over this many times before. Why haven't you learned anything yet?
Yeah, I know, stupid question. The reason is because you are a creationist and hence willfully ignorant and actively engaged in avoiding learning anything.Most basically, you do not know what a law is:

California Science Education Framework:

---

From Hammond Barnhart dictionary of Science. Maplewood, N.J.: Hammond, Inc., Copyright 1986

​

Definitions

• Law, n. 1. a statement of what always occurs under certain conditions; a description of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions: the laws of motion, Mengel's laws. ...
  ​
• Hypothesis, n. 1. a proposition assumed as the basis for reasoning and often subjected to testing for its validity: ...
  ​
• Theory, n. 1. an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena: the theory of evolution. ...

​

Theory, hypothesis as terms and science mean a generalization reached by inference from observed particulars and proposed as an explanation of their cause, relations, or the like. Theory implies a larger body of tested evidence any greater degree of probability: ... Hypothesis designates a merely tentative explanation of the data, advanced or adopted provisionally, often as the basis of a theory or as the guide to further observation or experiment: ...

---

Under current conditions in which life already exists, any level of non-life precursors of life forming today would immediately be eaten by the life that already exists. IOW, those non-life precursors have a name: FOOD! Only under the conditions of no life already existing can those precursors to life survive long enough for the whole process. QUESTION: Where do you think that the Laws of Nature come from? Who created those laws?Oh, and why are you describing scientists as being "anti-God"? What are you talking about?You are projecting again. You are the creationist here, after all, and a distinguishing characteristic of creationists is boundless dishonesty.

---

PS

You believe life was magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity. How is that not absurd?

Taq, you wrote:"You believe life was magically poofed into being by a
supernatural deity. How is that not absurd?"***Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is the substance of things hoped
for, the evidence of things not seen."Substance (hypostasis) - assurance.
Evidence (elegchos) - proof.Reworded:Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proof of
things not seen.Real faith, the faith that Christ bestows upon an
individual, permeates every cell in that individual.That individual is every bit as assured as were the
Apostles who knew Him personally.JWST has revealed that the galaxies most distant
from earth in all directions are fully formed.Psalms 104:2 states that God stretched out the
heavens (plural). This includes both our atmosphere
and the universe. We can still see the red shift
from this.Everything points to creation, not blind random luck.
Blind random luck has nothing to do with real science.

That is not what any of this has been about! THAT HAS NEVER BEEN WHAT ANY OF THIS HAS BEEN ABOUT!You not only have no clue what you are talking about, but you also have no clue what anybody's been talking about!  PSAnd nobody has ever brought up "blind random luck" except for STUPID LYING CREATIONISTS, like YOU!.Jessica H. Christ! What is so very wrong with you that makes you so completely divorced from reality? 

How does that make any of your claims less absurd? Writing absurd claims in a book doesn't make them less absurd. All you are proving is that you don't understand the creation, randomness, or real science. Anyone who says randomness has nothing to do with real science has labeled themselves as the scientifically ignorant. You can't do science without a firm grasp of randomness.

Still not the topic, but no one in science would describe abiogenesis as requiring "blind random luck." The word you're looking for is stochastic, which ChatGPT defined this way when I asked, "Could you define stochastic as it applies to abiogenesis?"

ChatGPT:

---

In the context of abiogenesis (the origin of life from non-living matter), stochastic refers to the idea that the chemical and physical processes leading to the emergence of life were influenced by random, probabilistic events rather than being strictly deterministic.

​

Key aspects of stochastic abiogenesis include:

​

• Random molecular interactions: The formation of self-replicating molecules, such as RNA, depended on random collisions and chemical reactions occurring under early Earth conditions.
  ​
• Chance-driven pathways: While natural laws governed chemical reactions, the specific sequence of events that led to life emerging was not preordained but shaped by chance and environmental conditions.
  ​
• Selection and amplification: Once self-replicating molecules arose, natural selection began favoring more stable and efficient replicators, but the initial formation relied on stochastic chemical processes.

​

In short, abiogenesis is thought to be a stochastic process because it involved unpredictable but statistically likely chemical reactions over vast time scales, eventually leading to the first self-replicating systems.

---

Do you think that maybe finding common ground, for instance by using proper terminology, might help you in your efforts at persuasion?--Percy

Students are taught the scientific consensus, just as they should be. If they are going to have careers in the sciences then they need to understand the consensus within those scientific fields. All empty assertions. I would suggest you take some advice from one of your fellow YECs.

quote:

---

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

​

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

​

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

​

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

​

I think that's all I want to say today. Rant over.
The truth about evolution

---

Your refusal to accept reality is not a mark against any scientific theory.Also, if you want to see the type of data creationism needs to explain, and what the theory of evolution already explains with ease, I would suggest reading this post:EvC Forum: Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Dwise, you wrote:"Here we go again. If all you can do is run scared away
from every single question, then why be here? Go back to
your church's suck-circle and spend your days there safely
ensconced from reality."
​
"But if you insist on venturing out into the real world, then
reality will be in your face 24/7/365.2425. In the real world,
there is no escape from reality. And part of facing reality is
facing and answering questions."
​
"So if you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the real world."***What heat are you talking about? Surely you are not telling
me that I am getting heat from someone whose brain is
nothing but a random collective of cells.You claim that the chimps are distant relatives of yours. You
insist that you are nothing more than a slightly educated
offspring of an amoeba.How proud you must be of your heritage!Atheists are really weird people. They are perhaps the most
gullible people on earth.Atheists believe that "once upon a time" there was nothing.
And somehow, by chance (atheists base their science on
pure luck and eons of time), nothing exploded and created
everything in the universe.Atheists can receive grants to help them support their
unsubstantiated worldviews. And this is exactly what a have.Atheists can receive grants in order to dig up long dead apes,
and then pass them off as being ancient ancestors of the
human race.A/E'sSatan, as the present ruler of this age, has deluded the world
into believing that we are the result of Darwinian evolution.There is absolutely nothing to support this, but in order to
dismiss a Creator and His laws human gravitate to this
nonsense.Dawkins, the current leader of atheists, has stated that there
exists an appearance of design, but he states that this is mere
a delusion.Dawkins has also stated that he could see aliens and
panspermia. He has no answer for how the aliens came into
existence. He will not accept God as our Creator.Dawkins believes that a pattern of resemblance between
organisms, including genes, is strong evidence of common
descent. He tells us to use our imagination. Scientific, isn't it!It never entered his mind that the Creator would employ
similar traits and characteristics in creation.Dawkins, as well as all atheists, are clueless about the origin
of life. For them it goes something like this:Simple molecules self-assembled into more and more
complex molecules, into more complex, into more complex
molecules, which eventually became a living organism.They somehow forget that as we add complexity that the law
if entropy and randomness is pushing it back in the other
direction. It's similar to trying to go uphill while a greater
force is pushing it downhill.The law of entropy leads to decay of complexity. What we
observe in living organisms is complexity that didn't come
from simplicity, because that violates the Law of
Thermodynamics.The Apostle Paul's tell us in Romans 8 that the universe is
running down, that it is awaiting the coming sons of God.Paul understood the Law of Entropy. A/E's do not.​

Jessica H. Christ! What is so very wrong with you that you are compelled to repeatedly demonstrate what a complete fucking idiot you are? And now you take extreme false pride over your ignorance of English? That's just plain sick! Hey, stupid asshole!The expression that every native speaker of American English knows is:

quote:

---

If you can't handle the heat, THEN STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN!

---

The "heat" that you cannot stand and cannot deal with is REALITY.Hence, IF YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH REALITY, THEN FLEE REALITY AND RETREAT BACK TO YOUR COVEN'S SUCK-CIRCLE THAT SHARES YOUR DELUSION.Then you completely waste 51 lines of bandwidth blathering the most stupid bullshit nonsense imaginable. To what end? PROVING MY POINT THAT YOU CANNOT DEAL WITH REALITY AND RUN AWAY SCARED FROM IT EVERY SINGLE TIME!What a pathetically stupid fucking idiot you are! You are completely hopeless. Give up! You have already completely destroyed your religion's credibility and yet you insist on damaging it ever more. What is so pathologically wrong with you that drives you to do such damage to your own position?

The Simpsons:

---

Nelson the Bully: Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!

---

  Either start dealing with reality or go away and stop wasting everybody's time. And the forum's bandwidth!  PS 

BTW, the questions that you are running away from this time are: Instead of running away from our simple direct questions in stark terror, as you always do, try answering the questions for a change.And while you're at it, also answer Percy's question that he has asked about a dozen times by now:   What does it take to get you to answer a few simple direct questions?Why are you so terrified of a few simple direct questions? 

Hmmm, I mean, I agree with you, buuuuuut, also, there's no point to calling someone out in such a manner.Their own actions already speak volumes about their ability and willingness to engage in honest discussion.I think they're very aware of this fact themselves, it's a conscious decision and thus, I think it's just trolling behaviour, small posts filled with garbage just to lure a large, more complex, angry sounding response.I mean, I don't think you're angry, but the frustration is palpable, and I know, I feel that shit too.Hence why there's no point in all this harsh language in my opinion, because if actual reality isn't convincing and actual, focused conversation isn't possible, nothing else is going to really do anything.

Percy, you stated:"What flat-earthers and astrologers have in common with
creationists is that none of them are doing science.Science grants go to people and groups who are doing science."***Grant money should go to those who seek the truth.Grant money should go to study possible, and even likely,
events that happened in the past.Every nation on earth have their stories of a worldwide flood.
And, Earth's strata certainly points to a worldwide deluge. I
understand that atheists have their theory(ies), but that should
not prevent competing ideas.Huge fossil graveyards are scattered across the globe.
Atheists insist that these graveyards are the result of many
large regional floods.Why is it taboo to suggest that there might have been a
worldwide flood when evidence seems to suggest that this
is a real possibility?How can it be "real science" when a viable option is left out?
It is both gullible and inefficient when this happens.There was a time when prayers were allowed in schools. There
was a time when one was allowed to talk freely about Christ in
our schools.The intolerant left has hijacked our schools and universities.
Today, drag queens are allowed to bring their filth into schools.Our schools have become indoctrination centers. Young kids
are encouraged to explore their sexuality. Some schools, under
Biden, were encouraging kids to consider that they might be a
different gender. It went much deeper than that.The left has controlled our schools for decades. And every
year our school's test scores go down and down and down.We teach our kids that we are nothing but animals, no
different than chimps or other animals. And we wonder why
they bring guns to school.We lower our grade requirements time and time again in
order to promote kids. Many twelveth graders are graduating
with basic reading and math skills of eighth graders.We wanted God out of our school; so, He left.Since His departure our schools and universities have
become a jokeGod has allowed Satan to rule until Christ comes to replace
him. However, I can say that God is with my grandchildren
while they are in school. They want Him with them.​

Again, science grants go to people and groups who are doing science.If there were any such thing as truth grants then I guess they could go to people seeking truth, but whose truth? Yours? Jews? Islamists? Buddhists? Hindus? Any of a huge number of other religions?Creationist views such as the ones you're expressing have been exposed as thinly veiled religion. People of any religion can get science grants, but only if they're doing science. If they're only doing thinly veiled religion it will be obvious and they won't get the grant.Returning once again to the topic, if you want science grants, what do you think would be the best way to persuade people you're doing science and not religion?--Percy