"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

sponsoredwalk

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

*double apostrophe twitch*

Haha! It's late!

Turtwig

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

(;)) on this forum I think it should be stickied!

I'll Have what you're drinking.

Galvasean

It's not stickied as there is no need. It's so 'popular' that it keeps getting bumped to near the top of the forum anyhow.

dead one

Wicknight wrote: »

Weird, you both use a ridiculous amount of unnecessary smilie faces. Odd that.;)

You don't have answer to posts and now you are answering similes. Isn't it true?

Wicknight wrote: »

Was JC feeling a bit lonely on this forum and decided to bring a "friend" along for company?

JC don't know me nor i know him. It is in fact, fortune which brings me here to bust beautiful lies of Evolution and We have succeeded to much when you ignore our posts and answer similes:eek:.

Why you have so firm belief in lies of evolution. Even you are not eyes witness?

dead one

thebhoy wrote: »

I now declare by the power of the FSM, and the divinity of the teapot, that evolutionists have won this debate and creationists have lost.

Yes, you won by using the power of lies, Lies are always in power against the truth. But truth takes time to win against lies. Please see how you are selling lies.

Bernard Baruch wrote:

Don't try to buy at the bottom and sell at the top.It can't be done except by liars.

Also see

unknown wrote:

Evolution is a delusion entirely surrounded by liars in old clothes.

thebhoy wrote:

Victory to the all powerful evolution***, bow down before it or it will smite you with its power... (its power may not be visible unless viewed over a large amount of time)

powerful evolution*** in the word's of Hitler
Hitler said in "Mein Kampf" that

hitler wrote:

if you tell a lie for the purpose of propaganda, tell a big one! Because the bigger the lie is, the more people are apt to believe it, because they can't possibly believe you would dare to tell such a big lie unless it was the truth!

Great victory!
BTW: Do you really think it is victory

stevoslice

dead one wrote: »

powerful evolution*** yada yada yada

@Hitler wrote:

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

I wonder what the bigger lie is, religion, or no religion... creation from nothing, or evolution... santa clause, or richard dawkins...

dead one

thebhoy wrote: »

I wonder what the bigger lie is, religion, or no religion... creation from nothing, or evolution... santa clause, or richard dawkins...

You build wonder on lie, bigger lie is no religion, or religion, God is your creator, or you are product of guess work,fiction, theory, accident, a beautiful lie, Bla, Bla Bla, Duzzzzz:eek:

sensibleken

dead one wrote: »

You build wonder on lie, bigger lie is no religion, or religion, God is your creator, or you are product of guess work,fiction, theory, accident, a beautiful lie, Bla, Bla Bla, Duzzzzz:eek:

God is my creator? Is he everyones? Could he take back my cousin and try and make him again this time without severe downs syndrome? I take it that he did that on purpose

MrPudding

sensibleken wrote: »

God is my creator? Is he everyones? Could he take back my cousin and try and make him again this time without severe downs syndrome? I take it that he did that on purpose

Pah. You know nothing. God's creation was perfect. The fall caused your cousins downs along with all the bad stuff seen in the world.

Everyone know god only does the good stuff, man is responsible for the bad.

MrP

gbee

thebhoy wrote: »

I wonder what the bigger lie is, religion, or no religion... creation from nothing, or evolution... santa clause, or richard dawkins...

It's Santa Claus, he was German or Hungarian or an extraction of. Invented by the Coca Cola company in the 1930s as a promotion for their beverages.

The lie in religion is most people not actually following the spirit of same in their ordinary lives.

Spontaneous creation can be made in the laboratory, the spark of the universe is still sparking today, the only difference in where we live is their is no kindling for it to ignite.

As with all things, there is a time, during that time the elements must come together or that spark of life will ignite nothing [at that time]. On earth we had a golden age were life had to form, it did, it spread around the globe and was almost totally destroyed several times.

Animals who came form the seas retreated back again as the land became hostile ~ the story is fascinating.

sensibleken

MrPudding wrote: »

Pah. You know nothing. God's creation was perfect. The fall caused your cousins downs along with all the bad stuff seen in the world.

Everyone know god only does the good stuff, man is responsible for the bad.

MrP

ah. so got just left an extra chromosome lying about the place and then Man fell on it.

God has some serious health and safety issues.

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

Everyone know god only does the good stuff, man is responsible for the bad.

There's a faintly interesting religious brainfart on that point.

For somebody to be able to believe themselves able to say that something is definitively "good" (and therefore, the result of a deity's actions) or "bad" (the result of a person's actions), they must believe that they have deity-level ability to make moral judgments.

How unbelievable is that?

coffee_cake

robindch wrote: »

There's a faintly interesting religious brainfart on that point.

For somebody to be able to believe themselves able to say that something is definitively "good" (and therefore, the result of a deity's actions) or "bad" (the result of a person's actions), they must believe that they have deity-level ability to make moral judgments.

How unbelievable is that?

After talking with some of them in the "other" forum a while back, it seemed to be a bit circular
God is good because the bible says so and god says so, so anything god does is good
But we don't think earthquakes e.g. can be good because they don't seem that way to us, so either god didnt do them (backing up that they're bad) or god did do them and it's good
That was only a couple of the posters though, and we never did pin them down on how they can judge something to be good or bad

sensibleken

bluewolf wrote: »

But we don't think earthquakes e.g. can be good because they don't seem that way to us, so either god didnt do them (backing up that they're bad) or god did do them and it's good

He moves in mysterious ways. Like a mime being electrocuted

stevoslice

bluewolf wrote: »

After talking with some of them in the "other" forum a while back, it seemed to be a bit circular
God is good because the bible says so and god says so, so anything god does is good
But we don't think earthquakes e.g. can be good because they don't seem that way to us, so either god didnt do them (backing up that they're bad) or god did do them and it's good
That was only a couple of the posters though, and we never did pin them down on how they can judge something to be good or bad

i always thought of it as this: -
when the earthquake/flood/storm causes catastrophe, then it was just bad luck, however when everyone decides to help out the victims of the earthquake/flood/storm, that's all down to god.

Similar to the chilean mining disaster, NASA gets everyone out safely thanks to massively complicated technology, but its god who did it really.:rolleyes:

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

There's a faintly interesting religious brainfart on that point.

For somebody to be able to believe themselves able to say that something is definitively "good" (and therefore, the result of a deity's actions) or "bad" (the result of a person's actions), they must believe that they have deity-level ability to make moral judgments.

How unbelievable is that?

Easy. It is revealed.

MrP

Galvasean

dead one wrote: »

Hitler said in "Mein Kampf" that

Every time you try to bring Hitler into this people laugh at you.

robindch

bluewolf wrote: »

we never did pin them down on how they can judge something to be good or bad

They can't -- the contradiction above will arise if they do.

It's Euthyprho on speed, I suppose.

Zombrex

dead one wrote: »

You don't have answer to posts and now you are answering similes. Isn't it true?



JC don't know me nor i know him. It is in fact, fortune which brings me here to bust beautiful lies of Evolution and We have succeeded to much when you ignore our posts and answer similes:eek:.

Why you have so firm belief in lies of evolution. Even you are not eyes witness?

Its just odd that you share so many unusual traits in your posting styles, such as ending posts with a ridiculous number of smilie faces. JC and you are the only two (one?) posters I know interested in Creationism that do this.

Galvasean

Odd posting style for odd people.

liamw

Anyone recommend any decent books on creationism? I want to critically compare them to my books on evolution.

stevoslice

liamw wrote: »

Anyone recommend any decent books on creationism? I want to critically compare them to my books on evolution.

Funniest post ever...

robindch

liamw wrote: »

Anyone recommend any decent books on creationism? I want to critically compare them to my books on evolution.

Madness lies that way.

With gritted teeth, I bought one for a tenner a few years back so that I could give some feedback to a creationist friend of mine. I managed to make it half way through the short, incredibly poorly written, ravings of the lunatic author before (literally) throwing it at the wall.

Spend your money on booze instead. It's much more fun!

sponsoredwalk

I got a free (signed) Ray Comfort book a while ago (remember he was
offering free books to atheists?). I've also gotten two other books from similar
lunatics offering free religious books online. Keep an eye out & you'll find
them! They are absolutely hilarious!

J C

liamw wrote: »

Anyone recommend any decent books on creationism? I want to critically compare them to my books on evolution.

http://www.creationism.org/books/index.htm

liamw

robindch wrote: »

Madness lies that way.

With gritted teeth, I bought one for a tenner a few years back so that I could give some feedback to a creationist friend of mine. I managed to make it half way through the short, incredibly poorly written, ravings of the lunatic author before (literally) throwing it at the wall.

Spend your money on booze instead. It's much more fun!

I was only joking btw but, ye i've read through one of those books the Intelligent Design movement was pushing to get into schools... you can only laugh

liamw

J C wrote: »

http://www.creationism.org/books/index.htm

First book I looked at "IT'S A YOUNG WORLD AFTER ALL".

Chapter 1:
1 - Moon Dust and
the Question of Time

The basic argument is that there is not a lot of dust on the moon, therefore the universe must be young. :rolleyes:

And then comes the funnier part:

– UPDATE 2002 - Added for the Web Version –

A recent review of the latest and best evidence by creation scientists Andrew A. Snelling and David E. Rush indicates that there is much less dust in the earth-moon vicinity that earlier estimated. As a result most creationists now believe that the moon-dust argument should not be used.

Improbable

liamw wrote: »

First book I looked at "IT'S A YOUNG WORLD AFTER ALL".

Chapter 1:
1 - Moon Dust and
the Question of Time

The basic argument is that there is not a lot of dust on the moon, therefore the universe must be young. :rolleyes:

And then comes the funnier part:

A recent review of the latest and best evidence by creation scientists Andrew A. Snelling and David E. Rush indicates that there is much less dust in the earth-moon vicinity that earlier estimated. As a result most creationists now believe that the moon-dust argument should not be used.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

You'd think that geology and physicists interested in the age of the earth would be jumping on this to get a bit of the action from what would arguably be the most amazing scientific discovery in a long time. I wonder why they're not...

housetypeb

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+2]“Buried Alive”[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=+1]by Jack Cuozzo[/SIZE]

Master Books, Inc.
P.O. Box 727
Green Forest, AR 72638 349 pages - ©1998 - ISBN: 0-89051-238-8


Jack Cuozzo, the author, offers his readers a factual adventure into the truth of Neanderthal Man.
This book combines edge-of-your-seat suspense with unequaled research notes and photographs. Jack Cuozzo presents compelling evidence that Neanderthal Man didn’t live “millions” of years ago, but rather lived to be hundreds of years old. This book is guaranteed to be a ‘tooth-ache’ in the mouth of Anthropologists and Evolutionists.



There is a fortune to made writing books for the sort of people who would buy crap like this.

J C

liamw wrote: »

First book I looked at "IT'S A YOUNG WORLD AFTER ALL".

Chapter 1:
1 - Moon Dust and
the Question of Time

The basic argument is that there is not a lot of dust on the moon, therefore the universe must be young. :rolleyes:

And then comes the funnier part:

... and then comes the serious facts:-

Quote:-
Scientists are always discovering new evidence and re-evaluating old evidence. Therefore, arguments for various conclusions come and go with the advance of knowledge. This book was published in 1986 and the arguments it presents were those at the time judged to be the best and most easily communicated. Since 1986, great advances in creation research have occurred, and many new evidences have come to light. The new evidences are in many cases more powerful than those known in the mid-1980s and contained in this book. To access the best current evidences for recent creation go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp . The case for recent creation is much stronger today than it was in 1986. We may, with more assurance than ever, proclaim, “It's a young world after all.”