Conquer Club

That quote checks out. This fact does not compute.

I saw this today and thought of creationists:

jonesthecurl wrote:

He who begins by loving Christianity better than Truth will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, aned end by loving himself better than all.

(Coleridge)

Not as big a toilet-head as Asimov then, I take it.

I believe that Coleridge was a dope-head, not a toilet-head. I could be wrong.

viceroy has challenged me in a trench warfare game

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23562&p=4068644#p4068644

looking for some trips/quads for a evolutionists/creationists smackdown; who's up for team evolution?

jonesthecurl wrote:

He who begins by loving Christianity better than Truth will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, aned end by loving himself better than all.

(Coleridge)

Nice quote. I will have to save that one!

betiko wrote:viceroy has challenged me in a trench warfare game

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 4#p4068644

looking for some trips/quads for a evolutionists/creationists smackdown; who's up for team evolution?

I'm down* (edit) for Team Evo.

In the medieval ages, truth was ascertained through duel, so my CC brothers and sisters, let us take up the good fight.

I'm in for Team Evolution!

I have too much of an irregular schedule right now to participate in games.

Not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but here is the science behind creation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... X9eDTNfQHY

mejihn7779 wrote:Not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but here is the science behind creation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... X9eDTNfQHY

The guys 'proof ' is an article he wrote himself , solid science that

comic boy wrote:

mejihn7779 wrote:Not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but here is the science behind creation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... X9eDTNfQHY

The guys 'proof ' is an article he wrote himself , solid science that

Einsteins 'proof' was an article that he wrote himself also.

But nobody denies the logic behind the theory of relativity.

Did you really understand that explanation?

Here, watch it again...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... X9eDTNfQHY



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z43s4tx9CxM

Now obviously these explanation don't explain the distances of light years that we see from the universe so there must be something else here not covered. Yet!

Viceroy63 wrote:

comic boy wrote:

mejihn7779 wrote:Not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but here is the science behind creation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... X9eDTNfQHY

The guys 'proof ' is an article he wrote himself , solid science that

Einsteins 'proof' was an article that he wrote himself also.

But nobody denies the logic behind the theory of relativity.

Did you really understand that explanation?

Here, watch it again...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... X9eDTNfQHY



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z43s4tx9CxM

Now obviously these explanation don't explain the distances of light years that we see from the universe so there must be something else here not covered. Yet!

Einsteins theory was accepted because of peer review and validation , thats how science works , how many of your creationist fantasies have been peer reviewed and validated ?

By Creationist; All of them!

And it's still science if the observations are logical.

The question is really why would a logically concluding theory be accepted while another logically concluding theory not be accepted?

I have a theory that explains this. People who simply want to "kill" God, do not accept any logically concluding Theory that has anything to do with God.

Viceroy63 wrote:

comic boy wrote:

mejihn7779 wrote:Not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but here is the science behind creation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... X9eDTNfQHY

The guys 'proof ' is an article he wrote himself , solid science that

Einsteins 'proof' was an article that he wrote himself also.

But nobody denies the logic behind the theory of relativity.

i r agree




--Andy

Seriously though, people need to stop posting videos and start typing out their arguments. I am just straight up not going to watch a half hour video. I value my time too much.

Frigidus wrote:Seriously though, people need to stop posting videos and start typing out their arguments. I am just straight up not going to watch a half hour video. I value my time too much.

I watched long enough to see the first claim. It said that the galaxies are winding up too fast, and starts the explanation by saying that the stars at the center of a galaxy are moving much faster than the stars at the edges of a galaxy, and this would lead to an effect where the galaxy would wind up down to a much smaller, more dense cluster of stars and planets in less than 300 million years, therefore disproving that galaxies can be 10 billion years old as taught by current cosmology.

Then I went and googled the actual facts, and guess what? All stars, the ones near the middle and the ones at the edge, are moving at roughly the same speed. The ones in the middle aren't moving faster at all. They have greater angular momentum because they are closer to the center and so they take less time to move one circuit around the center, but they have around the same basic speed as the stars at the edge. Therefore the argument this guys starts out with is pure BS.

Having wasted 10 minutes of my life watching that far and googling for the facts I decided not to waste any more time listening to the other lies he's been paid to whore his PhD's credibility out to tell...

bring on your creationist team viceroy (if you can find 2, i doubt it!), we're game with bbs and crispybits to solve this on the battlefield. whoever loses stops posting on this thread!

if your imaginary friend exists he will give your team the dice I guess.

Frigidus wrote:Seriously though, people need to stop posting videos and start typing out their arguments. I am just straight up not going to watch a half hour video. I value my time too much.

From here forth, I promise the only videos I'll post will be related to Futurama.


--Andy

betiko wrote:bring on your creationist team viceroy (if you can find 2, i doubt it!), we're game with bbs and crispybits to solve this on the battlefield. whoever loses stops posting on this thread!

if your imaginary friend exists he will give your team the dice I guess.

oh, lets make a whole damn tourney out of it...Im in

It will be the perfect match...Knowledge of mathematics, psychological theory, and probability vs pure luck.

Viceroy63 wrote:By Creationist; All of them!

And it's still science if the observations are logical.

The question is really why would a logically concluding theory be accepted while another logically concluding theory not be accepted?

I have a theory that explains this. People who simply want to "kill" God, do not accept any logically concluding Theory that has anything to do with God.

So basicly you dont understand the concept of Peer review

Viceroy63 wrote:By Creationist; All of them!

And it's still science if the observations are logical.

The question is really why would a logically concluding theory be accepted while another logically concluding theory not be accepted?

I have a theory that explains this. People who simply want to "kill" God, do not accept any logically concluding Theory that has anything to do with God.

I hate to poke another hole in another one of your "theories", but many of the scientists that you suggest want to "kill" God, actively believe and worship him as well, but still believe in evolution, because the actual science behind it, is beyond reproach.

It is you that have let your beliefs affect your view of the evidence, and are therefore the illogical one, and as such, perhaps the most hypocritical being in existence....and if that's a stretch, which it is, certainly you hold the crown in CC land.

Youtube Video "Evolutionist Dirty Little Secret" at the bottom of this comment.
Thank you.

AAFitz wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:By Creationist; All of them!

And it's still science if the observations are logical.

The question is really why would a logically concluding theory be accepted while another logically concluding theory not be accepted?

I have a theory that explains this. People who simply want to "kill" God, do not accept any logically concluding Theory that has anything to do with God.

I hate to poke another hole in another one of your "theories", but many of the scientists that you suggest want to "kill" God, actively believe and worship him as well, but still believe in evolution, because the actual science behind it, is beyond reproach.

It is you that have let your beliefs affect your view of the evidence, and are therefore the illogical one, and as such, perhaps the most hypocritical being in existence....and if that's a stretch, which it is, certainly you hold the crown in CC land.

Please, Poke away! And don't let the fact that you twist my words bother you in the slightest, while you're doing all of your "poking away." OK.

I never said "scientist" who want to kill God but rather "People," as in people in general of whom some of them do play the role of the "scientist" from time to time. But it's People who generally want to Kill God.

There are true Scientist out there and they do go on record for being anti-envolutionist. Because the theory of evolution has no foundation to go against established facts. You and I for example, are compose of carbon based molecules. That is to say dirt of the earth. Who established this fact before scientist ever figured it out? The Bible did of course.

"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground..."
Genesis 2:7

If the Bible was so full of shit as some would presume it is, then how would it get so many things right, and right of the bat as it does? If it is merely some fable then why did this imaginary god not make man from fire or star light? The facts are the facts and they are recorded for us to see in the bible first, before any so called scientist actually figured them out.

But here also is my point. If all of those, so called God of the Bible, and that is what I am talking about, "God of the Bible" believing scientist; If those so called scientist who believe in the theory of evolution are actually God fearing, God believing Christians, then how can they also go against the very words of God and say that Man evolved from a common ancestor of lower form of animals on the planet? When the Bible specifically states that the only evolution that actually took place was that of Dirt evolving into Man in a mere matter of moments?

I would think that any scientist who believes that man evolved from lower life forms and at the same time consider themselves "believers" of god??? Well, these are the true hypocrites and thank you for pointing that out to us.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjprkQbOouQ

I find it interesting that none of the supporters of evolution were willing to watch any more than 10 minutes of the videos. That's like listening to a hypothesis and saying it's wrong or useless before giving the person a chance to explain. I dare any of the evolution supporters to watch both the videos & refute all his evidence. I BET YOU CAN'T!

Viceroy63 wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:By Creationist; All of them!

And it's still science if the observations are logical.

The question is really why would a logically concluding theory be accepted while another logically concluding theory not be accepted?

I have a theory that explains this. People who simply want to "kill" God, do not accept any logically concluding Theory that has anything to do with God.

I hate to poke another hole in another one of your "theories", but many of the scientists that you suggest want to "kill" God, actively believe and worship him as well, but still believe in evolution, because the actual science behind it, is beyond reproach.

It is you that have let your beliefs affect your view of the evidence, and are therefore the illogical one, and as such, perhaps the most hypocritical being in existence....and if that's a stretch, which it is, certainly you hold the crown in CC land.

Please, Poke away! And don't let the fact that you twist my words bother you in the slightest, while you're doing all of your "poking away." OK.

I never said "scientist" who want to kill God but rather "People," as in people in general of whom some of them do play the role of the "scientist" from time to time. But it's People who generally want to Kill God.

There are true Scientist out there and they do go on record for being anti-envolutionist. Because the theory of evolution has no foundation to go against established facts. You and I for example, are compose of carbon based molecules. That is to say dirt of the earth. Who established this fact before scientist ever figured it out? The Bible did of course.

"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground..."
Genesis 2:7

If the Bible was so full of shit as some would presume it is, then how would it get so many things right, and right of the bat as it does? If it is merely some fable then why did this imaginary god not make man from fire or star light? The facts are the facts and they are recorded for us to see in the bible first, before any so called scientist actually figured them out.

But here also is my point. If all of those called God of the Bible, and that is what I am talking about, "God of the Bible" believing scientist; If those scientist who believe in the theory of evolution are actually God fearing, God believing Christians, then how can they also go against the very words of God and say that Man evolved from a common ancestor of lower form of animals on the planet? When the Bible specifically states that the only evolution that actually took place was that of Dirt evolving into Man in a mere matter of moments?

I would think that any scientist who believes that man evolved from lower life forms and at the same time consider themselves "believers" of god??? Well, these are the true hypocrites and thank you for pointing that out.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjprkQbOouQ

Well, as far as twisting your words....Scientists are people too. And its scientists, even believers that most contest your insane lack of knowledge on the subject.

And its not hypocritical at all to believe in an omnipotent being that set up a universe in which animals evolved from one another over millions of years. In fact, its just stupid, to think hed have done it any other way really.

Your bible description is just sloppy and the work of an amateur. The real universe is infinitely more beautiful than the fantasy you have chosen to believe in. That, is the hypocricy of your entire life's beliefs, from what Ive seen you post in here.