Creation Answer Book

Originally posted by googlefudge
And I sometimes wonder if you are not a 12 year old pretending.

As somebody (claiming to be) drawing a pension you come across as exceedingly childish.

The smugness emoticon on the end of every post to me? really?

could be the onset of dementia.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I accept that evolutionary theory is the best current explanation of how the diversity of life
developed on this planet and is still going on today and is observed to be going on today.
I accept that the process of evolution happens, this has been observed and is indisputable.
I accept that the process of evolution adequately and completely explains ...[text shortened]... n the
sentence which applied to RJHinds and Nicksten. I apologise for the ambiguity.

I made a new thread pointing out some holes in the theory of evolution.
😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I made a new thread pointing out some holes in the theory of evolution.
😏

it was more like a post pointing out the holes in your researching ability.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
it was more like a post pointing out the holes in your researching ability.

You likey? 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I made a new thread pointing out some holes in the theory of evolution.
😏

You made a thread in which you make fraudulent claims about what a non-authority says about
evolution and then try to back it up with a website run by creationist whackjobs for their own
propaganda purposes while you add in your own brand of failed logic, straw men and lies.

The one thing you did not do is point out any holes in the theory of evolution.

All of which is irrelevant to the point that even if evolution is wrong that does not in any way
mean that creationism is right and even if creationism were right it still is not and can never be
science.


All you are doing is highlighting your own ignorance, idiotic beliefs, failure to reason, tendency to
lie and commit fraudulent behaviour, and acting smug about it.

You are a true ambassador for your position.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You made a thread in which you make fraudulent claims about what a non-authority says about
evolution and then try to back it up with a website run by creationist whackjobs for their own
propaganda purposes while you add in your own brand of failed logic, straw men and lies.

The one thing you did not do is point out any holes in the theory of evol ...[text shortened]... fraudulent behaviour, and acting smug about it.

You are a true ambassador for your position.

Thanks for the kind words. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Thanks for the kind words. 😏

Thank you.
I meant everything I said.
They are all true.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Thank you.
I meant everything I said.
They are all true.

I think he is just trolling. Not much point feeding him.

Originally posted by lausey
I think he is just trolling. Not much point feeding him.

He resorts to trolling as soon as he is unable to support his assertions (so quite a lot, lol). It's a defence mechanism so he doesn't have to question his own beliefs.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
He resorts to trolling as soon as he is unable to support his assertions (so quite a lot, lol). It's a defence mechanism so he doesn't have to question his own beliefs.

Do you believe there is any other possibility to the existence of life on earth
than those stated below?

•Spontaneous creation - Random chemical processes created the first living
cell.

•Supernatural creation - God or some other supernatural power created the
first living cell.

P.S. Spontaneous creation according to Stephen Hawking
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/09/the-universe-exists-because-of-spontaneous-creation-stephen-hawking.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you believe there is any other possibility to the existence of life on earth
than those stated below?

•Spontaneous creation - Random chemical processes created the first living
cell.

•Supernatural creation - God or some other supernatural power created the
first living cell.

P.S. Spontaneous creation according to Stephen Hawking
http://w ...[text shortened]... y.com/my_weblog/2010/09/the-universe-exists-because-of-spontaneous-creation-stephen-hawking.html

We don't know, we can't know, but one of the options you list is based in magic, something for which I have yet to see any credible evidence in support.

Why the link?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you believe there is any other possibility to the existence of life on earth
than those stated below?

•Spontaneous creation - Random chemical processes created the first living
cell.

•Supernatural creation - God or some other supernatural power created the
first living cell.

P.S. Spontaneous creation according to Stephen Hawking
http://w ...[text shortened]... y.com/my_weblog/2010/09/the-universe-exists-because-of-spontaneous-creation-stephen-hawking.html

You are conflating, as always, the creation of the universe with the formation of life.

Due to your holding the ridiculous belief that they were formed together less than 10k yrs ago in a puff of divine magic.

The universe (or at least the bit of the universe we currently inhabit) began about 13.7 billion yrs ago.

Life on earth formed about 4.5 billion yrs ago, or about 9.2 billion yrs after the formation of the universe.

The theories governing the formation of the universe are different from the theories governing the formation of life.

Their veracity is independent of one another, and they belong in different feilds of science and are studied by different
people with different knowledge sets and qualifications.



Chemical processes are not random, they are governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, and follow predictable
paths.

So apart from anything else you are mischaracterizing the 'spontaneous' formation of life in a transparent attempt to make it sound
less plausible than it is.


There are however other possibilities other than the two you have suggested.

I will site one which is that the reality we inhabit is actually a computer simulation and we are computer programs (as are all other living things)
and they exist because a programmer insured that it was so.
This is not a supernatural action or circumstance, (by any definition I know) and is not spontaneous creation either.

And this is an option I can think of after 30 seconds (or less) thought on the subject.

There may well be more.

To claim that the two opinions are the only two you can't just not be able to think of any alternatives, but you have to demonstrate that the two
you have suggested are exhaustive and exclusive and that it's impossible for there to be any other alternatives.

And I don't care if those options sound ludicrous or are unlikely because nothing is more ludicrous or unlikely than god did it.


EDIT: And while Stephen Hawking is a genius, and is highly respected for his work, which has been ground breaking...
He is not infallible, nobody is, and he is wrong more often than he is right.
Some of his ideas are controversial and/or unproven and some are just wrong.
And this is before some media outlet gets hold of and distorts his words. (intentional or otherwise).

So quoting Stephen Hawking (or anybody else) does not automatically win you victory, particularly as in your case he would disagree with almost
everything you say, believe, and/or stand for.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
We don't know, we can't know, but one of the options you list is based in magic, something for which I have yet to see any credible evidence in support.

Why the link?

Isn't this Stephen Hawking a science genius?

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are conflating, as always, the creation of the universe with the formation of life.

Due to your holding the ridiculous belief that they were formed together less than 10k yrs ago in a puff of divine magic.

The universe (or at least the bit of the universe we currently inhabit) began about 13.7 billion yrs ago.

Life on earth formed about 4.5 ...[text shortened]... in your case he would disagree with almost
everything you say, believe, and/or stand for.

That is reassuring for I may have as good a chance of being right as
a science genius. Now I feel proud. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is reassuring for I may have as good a chance of being right as
a science genius. Now I feel proud. 😏

I said nothing of the sort.
The fact that someone as intelligent and learned as Hawking is wrong more often than he is
right doesn't mean that you [ignorant and proud of it] are right more than he is.

You are wrong WAY more than you are right. And wrong WAY more times than he is.

The point of the scientific method and peer review and all that is specifically because even the
smartest and most dedicated geniuses still have biases and make mistakes or go up blind alleys.

This is why science has so many mechanisms for correcting bias and we put so much store on
making observations and experimentation and constantly checking theories and never accepting
hypothesise that don't have evidence to back them up.

Science as a whole is right an awful lot more than it is wrong.
Because the scientists within it rigorously check each others work and correct each others mistakes.
And no individual is given preferential treatment such that they are assumed to be right without
rigorous checking.