There are easy creationist answers to problems evolutionists pose

In their eagerness to spread propaganda about us creationists it would seem evolutionists have never actually read anything we say despite them being the ones that call us ignorant.

Oh good gawd. The historical revisionism is strong with this one. There is nothing in your screed that is new, that is factual, that hasn't already been tossed in the dustbin by reality.

It's been, what, almost 5 generations now and you folk just keep bringing up the same old arguments that were, not just dismissed, but refuted, decades ago as if we'd never seen them before. I know. I was there. As we argue on into my second century I grow weary of the repetition.

Ok, I'm not that old but, Mikie, this crap is. This crap is way old and already dead.

This is a waste of electrons. But, it's hard to ignore an ignorant religious automaton trying to burn the world down.

Except for the opportunity to slap you around insulting you, which is actually quite fun, there is nothing here worth responding to.

[insert nasty personal insult here]

In fact disease and defect arise in time, not at creation week. Or do you think God invented covid for humans? Symbiotic hosts can become extinct for example. When you think about it it doesn't really take much thinking to solve some of the "simple" level problems you pose then endlessly repeat as though there are no answers to them. (Mendacious)

And where is this stated? Or did your god whisper this in your ear? You’re so privileged as to know the thoughts of god? Disease wasn’t mentioned in your book of death (bible) because the ancient ignorant minds that made up your god didn’t know about such things.

You made this up, just like creationists fake all their other excuses. (mendacious on steroids)

You’re the liar here, Mikie.

The wiring of the retina for example. But it's been answered now for years on end, eye-specialists have said there isn't any wrong wiring of the eye nor any defect caused by the wiring.

Such lying. That big ol’ blind spot is well known.

Why do you insist in spouting this crap when you MUST know we have the facts and this obvious stupidity was killed dead ages ago?

Mammalian eye - Wikipedia

The Flagellum Unspun

quote:

---

Although the eye remains a common and popular argument among laypeople, some intelligent design and creationism advocates have abandoned the eye as an example of "irreducible complexity" because of the relatively thorough understanding of its evolutionary origins biologists now have, instead relying more on mollecular and microscopic structures such as the flagella, though recent developments have shed significant light on these structures as well.[1]

---

Miller, Kenneth R. The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"

You’re a liar, Mike. Your “eye-specialists”, who you cannot list, didn’t say any such thing. And remember Project Steve - Wikipedia. For every creationist yahoo you cite I can cite 1,000 + that refute that.

Also a lot of the whining from atheists isn't usually scientific but theological because their complaints usually start with, "why would God do thus and so?"

It is all part of the same complaint. If you believe in this god monster then you have to accept and explain ALL of it including the evil. Scientific inquiry doesn’t stop at the physical. No area of inquiry is out of bounds for science.

That isn't a scientific motive in asking such questions and reveals your bias. If you were objective and open to the truth you wouldn't reveal your true motive which is to attack God, you would simply and honestly WONDER if there really are answers to why God does things beyond a limited human perspective.

Of course we have a bias. Openly. Deliberately.

Find the facts.

And the facts we find are that your god is a figment of ancient ignorant goat herders' quite human imaginations.

Frankly, science couldn’t care less about your creation myth fairy tale.

Scientists don’t spend their time writing up grant proposals to attack your version of Santa Claus.

After all it doesn't take any brain power to surmise that an omniscient mind might have omniscient reasons a human mind can't grasp.

Fact is it doesn’t take any brain power to fantasize ghosts, gods, demons. The brain power comes in with the critical thinking that negates the reality of these things. That is what you and your religionist brethren lack – the honesty of critical intellect.

What better demonstration of this is found in how humans make errors and jump to conclusions when they are plainly in the wrong?

Religion is the poster child. Every error and jump turns into a new cult. In science the human tendency to get it wrong is corrected by peer review. We change. We follow the data.

You guys get some stupidity stuck in your heads and despite clear evidence otherwise continue to believe the crap no matter how many millennia of evidence are known, no matter how much blood and evil ensue.

This behaviour is ubiqitous and we all do it. You can't tell us humans are full of bias and ineptitude and are fallible on the one hand then tell us your judgement is perfectly objective and righteous on the other.

The only ones we know of claiming perfectly objective and righteous anything are the brain-dead religionists like you.

[insert nasty personal insult here]

You bore people with talk of things such as confirmation bias, post-hoc reasoning, memory bias, pareidolia, and all the other human foibles yet when you ask child-level questions about God you think your first thought is going to be accurate and then a flippant dismissal of the issue.

You bore easily of this talk because you are too fucking stupid to understand the concepts and how they very directly impact the issues.

You’re a dumbshit, Mike.

"You can't define kind." MOOT. And you should know that by now. Because not being able to define the original kinds as a classification wouldn't mean it would follow they don't exist.

We can show the lineage of our kinds. I know why you have such a problem with yours. They never were made so.

The fact is we can define kind generally by defining them as the creatures God made.

The fact is we can define creationists generally by defining them as religionists disconnected from the reality of life by strong emotional and cognitive imbalances.

"Geologists back in the day dismissed a flood." This is the silliest one for me personally. Why? The, "geologists" back then didn't know anything.

They knew the bible and the book of genesis. And the more they learned the more they showed it was wrong.

You didn’t know this? Of course you knew this.

Mike you’re arguing abject stupidity from base ignorance. Stop that.

OVERALL CONCLUSION; In their eagerness to spread propaganda about us creationists it would seem evolutionists have never actually read anything we say despite them being the ones that call us ignorant. (think about it, we at least read your position, but you simply dismiss ours and therefore have a poor understanding of us generally speaking.)

As for our view of creationists, we are not eager to spread propaganda. We are eager to ignore. You brain-dead creationist twits keep coming up with these desperate stupidities and then lie about the science.

[insert nasty personal insult here]

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

He's praying for guidance. Some demon named dwise1 has him by the brain and he needs to be cleansed.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I am more of a Cosmological Creationist only in that I believe God was involved in starting it all...including the whole good vs evil scenario.

I’m not so good at cosmologies. I once couldn’t decide between big bang and Hoyle’s steady state. Then I thought the universe would expand a bit, actually a really big bit, then gravity would balance that expansion and the steady state might be achieved for an even bigger bit before beginning the slow, but accelerating, collapse to the singularity - rinse, repeat. I liked that. I really liked that one. I was so sorry when she left me.

My problem is I’m wishy-washy. I’m a parrot of the latest trends in science. Raphael would say I have a strong faith in science. Seems reasonable. But maybe more like a robot. Load science in here it comes out there pretty much intact but wrapped in a personality.

Reality does that to me. If our views of reality are forced to change by reality then only reality remains. Strange how that works.

Remember that reality is defined as our best guess at the time. A best guess backed by a universe-load of evidence as devoid of emotion and wishful thinking as we can make it, to be sure, but a guess nonetheless. And people ask why evidence is so important.

As for a divine spark at t=0? A quantum spark? A brane crash? A momma universe?

My personal creation myth is we are but one bubble in a dense frothy foam of universes covering the back of a turtle which is riding the back of another foam-covered turtle on yet another and it’s turtles all the way down. No, we're not at the top of the stack. It's turtles all the way up too. There might be a frog or two in there somewhere but I’m not certain.

Meaning I have no friggin' idea, yet.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Where would you categorize someone that accepts Divine Creation and that opposes evolution based on a non-religious stance, such as having scientific reasons for rejecting (some aspects of) evolution?

That subterfuge has been tried with intelligent design.

Now you can't do creationism. Can't do creation science. Can't do intelligent design.

So, this non-religious Divine Creation is the next ploy?

See you in court.

So I wonder what your position in court will be.

The same as in Dover - you guys lie.