Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:45 pm**

jonesthecurl wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:Actually, there can be no order if not first for chaos. Just like you can have imperfection and then reach perfection through improvement. Nothing else makes sense, really. How would you know what order is if you have never seen chaos? That's like saying that something is light before you ever saw the darkness. How would you know? The word order itself indicates a prior chaotic state.

How can that be so? If God was sitting on everything (including Himself cuz he's God), and if this brings order, then chaos need not be prior. The beginning of the universe was a new type of order--not from chaos, but from an orderly arrangement on which God was sitting.

Stalin; You are missing the point. There was nothing for God to sit on in the first place. No universe, nothing. Only God existed. Time and Space and Matter were all created things. Things which He created and from nothing brought into existence, the universe. Even Science agrees to that.

So there was no Chaos or Order. God therefore being perfect creates all things perfect while the imperfect false gods which imperfect men create, create imperfectly. That is how "Chaos" is created first into existence from a false god.

That is also why the theory of evolution is a false and imperfect assumption, because it is created by fallible and imperfect beings like the false God that they create as well.

Here we go again. Reference please, especially for the Science with a capital "S".

A response. viceroy? or your third la-la-la I can't hear you?

(I'm not counting anyone else's challenges at this point, or a number of others of mine which you honestly might have missed in the general flak that comes in your direction).

But your continual appeals to unimpeachable authority which you can't then back up are beginning to be tiresome.

You are so funny with your, "la-la-la I can't hear you?" Please don't think that I am trying to ignore anyone but you obviously don't seem to understand that If I am ask one or two questions at a time then I can actually answer one or two questions at a time. But if I am overwhelmed with questions and comments and most of it hateful, insulting and arrogant, Then I have to ignore them and you, and stay on track with the thread, which is that evolution is a lie. And the evidence is posted for all to see. Any one who reads the Original Post will see the evidence posted, that is.

If asked a question, then I will answer one question but if asked 100 stupid questions then I may answer one (or two of the) stupid questions but I will ignore the other 99 stupid questions. I am after all just ONE man who can see the truth and I am not going to get angry with those who disagree with me because they can't see the truth. But I certainly do understand human nature and why people get upset with me for speaking the truth. It's only human! But I am better than that and so I refuse to be upset with them even if they are upset with me. But if you want to think that I am going, "la-la-la I can't hear you?" then that's your problem and hopefully one day you'll grow up and out of that childish mentality.

As to the statement that "Even science agrees with It!" That has been shown for the past 40 or 50 years now that the universe had a beginning and science and astronomy has confirmed this logically. That you don't know this, is only a reflection of how much you don't know. And that's OK too because everyone does not have to know all things all the time. I just do happen to know what I am talking about when I say that "Science agrees to that." The universe did have a beginning and in fact came from nothing. Science agrees to that and the greatest science text book ever written, The Holy Bible, teaches this 2,000 years ago, before any modern day scientist ever realized the truth.

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
-Hebrews 11:3

But if you can't take the Bible's word for that then how about an actual human being who has a degree from some university?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaB-zq864-c

Posted: **Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:50 pm**

Viceroy63 wrote:As to the statement that "Even science agrees with It!" That has been shown for the past 40 or 50 years now that the universe had a beginning and science and astronomy has confirmed this logically. That you don't know this, is only a reflection of how much you don't know. And that's OK too because everyone does not have to know all things all the time. I just do happen to know what I am talking about when I say that "Science agrees to that." The universe did have a beginning and in fact came from nothing. Science agrees to that and the greatest science text book ever written, The Holy Bible, teaches this 2,000 years ago, before any modern day scientist ever realized the truth.

To clarify, astronomy does not directly claim that the universe 'had a beginning'. What current cosmological theory claims is that that there was once a very hot and dense state, where the physics we have a firm understanding of, no longer applied.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:36 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:
Here we go again. Reference please, especially for the Science with a capital "S".

A response. viceroy? or your third la-la-la I can't hear you?

(I'm not counting anyone else's challenges at this point, or a number of others of mine which you honestly might have missed in the general flak that comes in your direction).

But your continual appeals to unimpeachable authority which you can't then back up are beginning to be tiresome.

He, of course cannot.... the only things he will believe are things that already agree with his thought processes.

Convenient way to believe you know what truth is... just ignore anything that points out a difference. Of course, this is pretty much exactly the opposite of what Christ teaches (not that you particularly care about that argument, I realize).

Viceroy is not just wrong, he blasphemies by pretending his lies are supported by the Bible.

Interesting, Player.
To me it seems simpler than that;
He lambasts everyone for "not thinking for themself" then randomly quotes unimpeachable authorities which are either Dr Morris or something he makes up and calls "Science".
Then shuts up when challenged.
Stupid? Deluded?Willlfully ignorant? Troll?
It's actually not possible to tell.
Viceroy perhaps you could clear this up for us.
Are you stupid, deluded, heretical willfully ignorant, or trolling?
If none of the above, can you try to enlighten us on who else shares your views? I doubt if you even follow Dr Morris all that closely.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:51 am**

So, Viceroy, how exactly does Lawrence Krauss' lecture support your positions?

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:01 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:So, Viceroy, how exactly does Lawrence Krauss' lecture support your positions?

First you have to understand that there is science, the science that the rest of us believe, which is really just delusion... and then there is the "real" science, which bases itself upon facts known only to a select and privilaged few, such as Viceroy, hidden from the rest of us by our strange requirement to actually see and hear things, rather than just finding someone we like on the internet and believing whatever they say.

There are a few other young earth creationists here with whom I certainly disagree, but who seem mostly to have been extremely misinformed. Viceroy seems more like a troll.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:41 am**

LMAO at the voting instuction. "Lets vote on the facts". F'in creationists.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:59 am**

sundance123 wrote:LMAO at the voting instuction. "Lets vote on the facts". F'in creationists.

I vote the earth is flat, and the moon is cheese, swiss cheese...obviously.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:54 am**

AAFitz wrote:
sundance123 wrote:LMAO at the voting instuction. "Lets vote on the facts". F'in creationists.

I vote the earth is flat, and the moon is cheese, swiss cheese...obviously.

it's actually french cheese. I can quote doctor morris, he wrote a book about it.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:03 am**

I vote that creationists don't actually exist, and we're just all suffering a mass delusion caused by a God that created everything 6000 years ago because he's bored now and has nothing better to do.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:29 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:So, Viceroy, how exactly does Lawrence Krauss' lecture support your positions?

That evolution is a lie? It does not. I allowed myself to get side tract by those who simply can not or do not want to focus on the issue about the unfounded and false theory of evolution. Thanks BBS for setting me straight. I'll try not to get dissuaded again.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:31 pm**

Viceroy63 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:So, Viceroy, how exactly does Lawrence Krauss' lecture support your positions?

That evolution is a lie? It does not. I allowed myself to get side tract by those who simply can not or do not want to focus on the issue about the unfounded and false theory of evolution. Thanks BBS for setting me straight. I'll try not to get dissuaded again.

Ah, in other words, you failed to counter jonesthecurl's objections in his post.

Thanks for trolling or being an idiot. It's difficult to tell, but see ya around!

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:39 pm**

betiko wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
sundance123 wrote:LMAO at the voting instuction. "Lets vote on the facts". F'in creationists.

I vote the earth is flat, and the moon is cheese, swiss cheese...obviously.

it's actually french cheese. I can quote doctor morris, he wrote a book about it.

It's made of parmesan you blasphemers!

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:40 pm**

MeDeFe wrote:
betiko wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
sundance123 wrote:LMAO at the voting instuction. "Lets vote on the facts". F'in creationists.

I vote the earth is flat, and the moon is cheese, swiss cheese...obviously.

it's actually french cheese. I can quote doctor morris, he wrote a book about it.

It's made of parmesan you blasphemers!

Blessed Are the Cheesemakers!

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:05 pm**

Dukasaur wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
betiko wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
sundance123 wrote:LMAO at the voting instuction. "Lets vote on the facts". F'in creationists.

I vote the earth is flat, and the moon is cheese, swiss cheese...obviously.

it's actually french cheese. I can quote doctor morris, he wrote a book about it.

It's made of parmesan you blasphemers!

Blessed Are the Cheesemakers!

Guys, calm down.

It's obviously made out of American cheese, because God is American.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:22 pm**

Why don't you ask an expert ... someone who has been to the Moon?

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:34 pm**

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... qiyRo&NR=1

Scientist and Doctor's, discuss the Javaman Hoax, the Piltdown man Hoax, the Lucy Hoax and several others that are still used as evidence that Man evolved from lower forms of life. Even National Geographic admits that fossilized foot prints used as evidence of evolution resembles modern man foot prints exactly. Did Modern man exist millions of years ago? I don't think so.

This is not funny! Evolutionist continue to dupe the public with Hoaxes that they claim is evidence of evolution. Like the horse for example that has been proven a Hoax decades ago. Yet is still used in text books to teach evolution as fact. What is funny is that evolutionist claim that creationist are not being scientific?

What?????? Creationist are not the ones creating Hoaxes to prove their point. If anything creationist are acting more scientific in representing the facts than evolutionary scientist are.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:38 pm**

Can you provide evidence of a current science text book that claims Javaman or Piltdown Man or Lucy is evidence of a missing link between Homo Sapiens and previous evolutionary forms of human being Viceroy? I did science right up to university level, and I don't remember reading anything claiming that we'd identified a missing link in a text book (mostly those stories are media driven, and media reporting on scientific advances tends to be premature and sensationalist a lot of the time)

There may be text books from the mid 20th century that make these sorts of claims but I very much doubt there's anything currently in a text book (say from the last decade as these books get used for around 10 years on average then replaced) claiming any of these hoaxes are scientifically sound evidence of anything beyond humanities ability to hoax.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:19 am**

crispybits wrote:Can you provide evidence of a current science text book that claims Javaman or Piltdown Man or Lucy is evidence of a missing link between Homo Sapiens and previous evolutionary forms of human being Viceroy? I did science right up to university level, and I don't remember reading anything claiming that we'd identified a missing link in a text book (mostly those stories are media driven, and media reporting on scientific advances tends to be premature and sensationalist a lot of the time)

There may be text books from the mid 20th century that make these sorts of claims but I very much doubt there's anything currently in a text book (say from the last decade as these books get used for around 10 years on average then replaced) claiming any of these hoaxes are scientifically sound evidence of anything beyond humanities ability to hoax.

considering he uses a 1700 year old book (First Council of Nicaea) i guess his print is a bit out of date. Wrong language and translation too, but then you cannot expect american scholing to stay with current events

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:25 am**

Viceroy63 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... qiyRo&NR=1

Scientist and Doctor's, discuss the Javaman Hoax, the Piltdown man Hoax, the Lucy Hoax and several others that are still used as evidence that Man evolved from lower forms of life. Even National Geographic admits that fossilized foot prints used as evidence of evolution resembles modern man foot prints exactly. Did Modern man exist millions of years ago? I don't think so.

This is not funny! Evolutionist continue to dupe the public with Hoaxes that they claim is evidence of evolution. Like the horse for example that has been proven a Hoax decades ago. Yet is still used in text books to teach evolution as fact. What is funny is that evolutionist claim that creationist are not being scientific?

What?????? Creationist are not the ones creating Hoaxes to prove their point. If anything creationist are acting more scientific in representing the facts than evolutionary scientist are.

You are acting(your word) scientific to create(right word) the facts you mean.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:52 am**

Arguments from ignorance

Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science. Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.

In his conclusion to the Kitzmiller trial, Judge Jones wrote that "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." This same argument had been put forward to support creation science at the McLean v. Arkansas trial which found it was "contrived dualism", the false premise of a "two-model approach". Behe's argument of irreducible complexity puts forward negative arguments against evolution but does not make any positive scientific case for intelligent design. It fails to allow for scientific explanations continuing to be found, as has been the case with several examples previously put forward as supposed cases of irreducible complexity.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:33 pm**

I think that the only time an argument from ignorance isn't a fallacy is in the case of being skeptical towards an unproven claim. However, I think that these creationists need to realize that there's a staggering amount of material that needs refutation; even if we are to assume that no transitional fossils exist, there is still the matter of evolution being observed in laboratories (i.e. bacteria becoming more resistant to a specific drug, bacteria being able to live off other sources of nutrients, etc.)

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:11 am**

oss spy wrote:I think that the only time an argument from ignorance isn't a fallacy is in the case of being skeptical towards an unproven claim. However, I think that these creationists need to realize that there's a staggering amount of material that needs refutation; even if we are to assume that no transitional fossils exist, there is still the matter of evolution being observed in laboratories (i.e. bacteria becoming more resistant to a specific drug, bacteria being able to live off other sources of nutrients, etc.)

Evolution has never been observed in a Laboratory. Evolutionist make these claims of so much overwhelming evidence but actually are confusing one thing with another. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED AT ALL AT ANY TIME! It is after all the fossil record that is used to prove evolution yet where are the intermediate species between Ape and Man? Or any other species. You just can't show the bones of an ape and the bones of a modern man and say, "See, evolution."

Every time that scientist have showed this in the fossil records, it has been a Hoax or at the very least a very bad misrepresentation of the facts. But the fact that most of the evidence has been a Hoax must leads one to ask, Why? Why do scientist ever need to lie or mislead the public instead of just admitting that there is no evidence to support this claim?

In fact I dare you to post that evidence. I will refute it here one at a time.

All that scientist and biologist have been able to show is MUTATIONS. And most of the times mutations have been harmful to the life organism. When we speak of a virus mutating into another type of virus or adaptations to the original virus or germ, guess what, It is still just a virus or a germ. It did not evolve into a more complex and different animal/life/organism. So what evolution did we actually see in a laboratory? None! Black and white humans are mutations of the same species. So what?

Part of the problem is that evolutionary science can't even determine the definition of it's own words and confuse mutation with Darwinian evolution. Hell, evolutionary science has yet to determine what the word "Species" means? Even among themselves they can't get the meaning right on the words that they use and they call that evidence?

I think that it's all part of the Hoax to confuse people into believing in evolution. I think that you must have more faith to believe in a foundation-less theory of evolution than to believe in a Creator God. At least God has a foundation. The theory of evolution is a foundation-less religion! And it requires much faith and a closed mind to believe in it.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:37 pm**

I always enjoy SciShow's videos.

--Andy

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:45 pm**

Viceroy63 wrote:Evolution has never been observed in a Laboratory. Evolutionist make these claims of so much overwhelming evidence but actually are confusing one thing with another. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED AT ALL AT ANY TIME!

Yes it has.
And even if it hadn't, that wouldn't make it any less true. That's not how science works.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:45 pm**

Viceroy63 wrote:
oss spy wrote:I think that the only time an argument from ignorance isn't a fallacy is in the case of being skeptical towards an unproven claim. However, I think that these creationists need to realize that there's a staggering amount of material that needs refutation; even if we are to assume that no transitional fossils exist, there is still the matter of evolution being observed in laboratories (i.e. bacteria becoming more resistant to a specific drug, bacteria being able to live off other sources of nutrients, etc.)

Evolution has never been observed in a Laboratory.

If you're going to criticize something, you should at least be familiar with it.

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/lite ... ruit_flies
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121625.htm

I'm sure you'll read and understand those links, but don't worry, I'm not expecting much from you.

Conquer Club

An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.