DaGeo's flood of "proofs and evidence for creation"

[The Pixie]

So, here is your first proof and by far one the most powerful proofs for creation which far exceeds anything the evolutionary mythology believers have ever put on display in support for their highly selective and ill-conceived myth of evolution

?1. Actual eye witness accounts of creation as it actually happened when it happened

There you have it, I hereby proudly christen my very first, (as grandiose as it is), verifiable proof for creation.

You say this is verifiable. How can it be verified?

Your mistaken. The creation account was NOT told to Moses as Moses wrote it down, it was written by the finger God

The LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly” (Deuteronomy 9:10).

Can you show us these tables of stone? Of course not! This is just myth!

It looks to me like you have some unknown author claiming that Moses said that God wrote on the tables of stone. Worth noting that Deuteronomy was written centuries after Moses supposedly lived, and it is unlikely even the author saw the stone tables, even if they existed.

And the text seems to be saying it was the Ten Commandments, not God's eye witness account.

This is myth, pure and simple. It is laughable that you think this is proof of something. If this is the most powerful you have, then you have three quarters of zero.

 

[DaGeo]

Nope. I'm telling you there are no "actual eye witness accounts of creation as it actually happened when it happened".

Oh there’s MikeyT—He’s only trying to be helpful!!???
MikeyT, ya been doing a little time traveling have we????

 

[CrowCross]

Goldilocks...is just one example.

 

[Temujin]

Goldilocks...is just one example.

I assume that this was posted on the wrong thread. If not, you are presumably saying that Goldilocks, like the Bible, is a moralistic fairy story which no-one in their right mind would take literally.

 

[DaGeo]

You say this is verifiable. How can it be verified?


Can you show us these tables of stone? Of course not! This is just myth!

It looks to me like you have some unknown author claiming that Moses said that God wrote on the tables of stone. Worth noting that Deuteronomy was written centuries after Moses supposedly lived, and it is unlikely even the author saw the stone tables, even if they existed.

And the text seems to be saying it was the Ten Commandments, not God's eye witness account.

This is myth, pure and simple. It is laughable that you think this is proof of something. If this is the most powerful you have, then you have three quarters of zero.

Oh no no no nooooo Pixie my dear.
It appears your anxiety level is ramping up, let me help

I’m not posting for the sole purpose of creating anxiety. Both you and I know your evolution myth is on life support and it has been for some time now for lack of scientific support—but hey, I’m leaving the door open for you to come up with some. Surly someone might come up with some likely support, so don’t fret. Did I hear you say 90% of biologists believe in evolution? Well. Somebody ought come up with something any time now.

Come now Pixie, you don’t really expect me to come up with some stone tablets do you, what would that prove? Especially when you never ever treat me to those delicious transitional forms—-even on my birthday Pixie Pixieon-my-birthday No-transitional-formsAnd—I thought we were friends???

Verifiable? Of course! We’re talking about genuine eye-witness accounts of creation, not speculative human guesswork

Think about that Pixie

 

[rossum]

Both you and I know your evolution myth is on life support and it has been for some time now

Oh dear. Yet another version of The longest Running Falsehood in Creationism. You need to get to the back of the line, evolution has been on life support since 1825!

Creationism does not do any new research, so all its arguments are old. We have seen them all before and can easily recognise them and argue against them. You need to find a new argument, one that we have not seen before. Good luck, it won't be easy.

 

[CrowCross]

I assume that this was posted on the wrong thread. If not, you are presumably saying that Goldilocks, like the Bible, is a moralistic fairy story which no-one in their right mind would take literally.

You could start with the goldilocks position of the planet. God stuck it in a pretty good spot.

 

[CrowCross]

Creationism does not do any new research

Face palm.

 

[Gus Bovona]

You could start with the goldilocks position of the planet. God stuck it in a pretty good spot.

No need for any god to explain the goldilocks position of Earth when you consider the billions of planets just in our galaxy, and then consider the trillions of galaxies there are. Mere chance says that there should be a *lot* of planets in the goldilocks zone.

Please don't respond with, "but the odds of us finding ourselves on a goldilocks planet are still infinitesimal!" Any planet with organisms capable of asking that question *has* to be in the goldilocks zone, by definition of what the goldilocks zone is.

 

[DaGeo]

Oh dear. Yet another version of The longest Running Falsehood in Creationism. You need to get to the back of the line, evolution has been on life support since 1825!

Creationism does not do any new research, so all its arguments are old. We have seen them all before and can easily recognise them and argue against them. You need to find a new argument, one that we have not seen before. Good luck, it won't be easy.

Oh my rossum, at least you gave it all ya got.

Don’t get down on yourself, I have an idea

Rossum, you oughta set up a business and start peddling your low-grade rationale to evolutionists. Rationality is kinda scarce over there and when things get scare the price goes up. Just think, you could make bundle even with that low-grade stuff of yours

Here, I can help you with your new web page. Just call it: Rossum’s Rank and Rancid Rationale, the Rossum Way

IT WILL FOR THEIR ATTENTION


?????????

 

[Temujin]

You could start with the goldilocks position of the planet. God stuck it in a pretty good spot.

"This hole is just the right size and shape for me" said the puddle.

 

[CrowCross]

No need for any god to explain the goldilocks position of Earth when you consider the billions of planets just in our galaxy, and then consider the trillions of galaxies there are. Mere chance says that there should be a *lot* of planets in the goldilocks zone.

Please don't respond with, "but the odds of us finding ourselves on a goldilocks planet are still infinitesimal!" Any planet with organisms capable of asking that question *has* to be in the goldilocks zone, by definition of what the goldilocks zone is.

Setting aside the well established goldilocks argument for creation...you moved into another arena...stars.

How did all those stars fit into something into a Planck size singularity? Then we still need to go yet another step back...where did the stuff in the singularity come from? It's pretty obvious it didn't self create.

 

[CrowCross]

"This hole is just the right size and shape for me" said the puddle.

Then there is the life that is said to have evolved in that puddle. But, you have the Miller-Urey failed experiment to explain it...right?
But they tried and tried again...tweeking the pre-life ingredients like a baker making cookies..and still failed.

Funny isn't it? Not only is the planet in a goldilocks position....same seem to be true with the formation of life.

 

[DaGeo]

"This hole is just the right size and shape for me" said the puddle.

Wait, there’s more to the story...

And so the great Temujin jumps into the puddle—and is about to drown,

But DaGeo throws in the rope of rationality to save the great Temujin

As the plot thickens—-

the question on everyone’s mind is:
Will the Temujin, (the Walter Mitty wanna be warrior and empire builder), grasp the rope of rationality or will he drown

 

[Temujin]

Then there is the life that is said to have evolved in that puddle. But, you have the Miller-Urey failed experiment to explain it...right?
But they tried and tried again...tweeking the pre-life ingredients like a baker making cookies..and still failed.

Funny isn't it? Not only is the planet in a goldilocks position....same seem to be true with the formation of life.

The Miller-Urey experiment was a complete success. You are probably confused about what they were trying to do.

Nice switch of goal posts. If you put as much effort into actually arguing for your position instead of running away, you might achieve something. You won't convince anyone of course, but you might earn grudging respect instead of ridicule, though I have to admit, the idea seems far-fetched now I actually write it down.

 

[DaGeo]

The Miller-Urey experiment was a complete success. You are probably confused about what they were trying to do.

Nice switch of goal posts. If you put as much effort into actually arguing for your position instead of running away, you might achieve something. You won't convince anyone of course, but you might earn grudging respect instead of ridicule, though I have to admit, the idea seems far-fetched now I actually write it down.

Come on Temujin, once again, you turn a blind eye to the influx of new science and new information.

l realize it’s kinda tranquil to lull around in these good 0’days of old-fashioned obsolete science because that’s all you have and you obviously don’t keep current with new research and information.

The Miller-Urey experiment was nice while it lasted until it was blown away with new science—-yes, by those favoring evolution

Here let me help

Check out bigthink.com,

What the famous Miller-Urey experiment got wrong​

and get informed and stay up to date for a change

SHEEEESH
Note to self: Why do I have to keep evolutionists current on their own bad “science”

 

[rossum]

How did all those stars fit into something into a Planck size singularity?

Allow Professor Hawking to explain it for you:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.​

​

-- A Brief History of Time​

Fitting zero energy into a Planck size singularity is not difficult.

 

[CrowCross]

The Miller-Urey experiment was a complete success. You are probably confused about what they were trying to do.

Nice switch of goal posts. If you put as much effort into actually arguing for your position instead of running away, you might achieve something. You won't convince anyone of course, but you might earn grudging respect instead of ridicule, though I have to admit, the idea seems far-fetched now I actually write it down.

Not switching goal post....just presenting more of them.

 

[CrowCross]

Allow Professor Hawking to explain it for you:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.​

​

-- A Brief History of Time​

Fitting zero energy into a Planck size singularity is not difficult.

But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.

What a silly argument. For the total energy to be zero...there has to be energy on both sides of the equation.

 

[DaGeo]

Allow Professor Hawking to explain it for you:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.​

​

-- A Brief History of Time​

Fitting zero energy into a Planck size singularity is not difficult.

There ya have it folks, we can all go home now.
The mystery of the universe has been solved??????

Yep, take a little bit of raw information, combine it with a larger chunk of pure imagination and you got good science fiction.
Keep repeating it often enough and some people will soon think it’s the real thing and start repeating it.
That’s especially true for those who can’t/won’t or don’t keep up with the influx of new information