unbelievable. Yes, the same people that are manipulating google results with ease have done that as well. I wouldn't touch the guy's page and it wouldn't help me anyway. He even posted on his site that I tried to come to an understanding with him but he wants to keep trashing. The guys on there brag about googling me repeatedly and then post other links where they can trash me personally. Stop accusing me of things as this is getting really disgusting.
It's astounding how atheists can condone libel, harassing phone calls, google stalking, etc. because they disagree with an opinion. I had as many say so directly on Richard Dawkins when I asked them to intervene. At least they're more upfront than the posters here. I didn't touch anyone's wikipedia page btw, and the same guys who claimed I did are actually repeatedly trashing mine (though I've informed the admins and they've asked me to notify them of any future attacks).
You guys are really sick and that's all I have to say.
unbelievable. Yes, the same people that are manipulating google results with ease have done that as well. I wouldn't touch the guy's page and it wouldn't help me anyway. He even posted on his site that I tried to come to an understanding with him but he wants to keep trashing. The guys on there brag about googling me repeatedly and then post other links where they can trash me personally. Stop accusing me of things as this is getting really disgusting.
This has what to do with your poorly written and poorly thought out article?
My point was that atheists believe that all these formations happened on their own, i.e. spontaneously. I mentioned in the column that those who believe in evolution (which has many holes in it, but isn't the subject of the column) would actually have a greater problem explaning how all those steps can happen without a creator. To see why evolution is wrong (not the purpose of the above column) one can also read the bottom post of creationistsearch dot wordpress dot com
Thanks
The most obvious lesson to be learned from your article is that your knowledge of the natural sciences is at best POOR. The arguments you put forward are not even novel, they have been used by creationists of limited intellect many time, even though they have been overwhelmingly refuted.
As far as evolution goes; it explains elegantly what we see in the geological record and what we see in biological experiments today. There are no holes in the theory of evolution, just gaps in the evidence which will always exist due to the nature of geology.
Explaining the history of the known universe is well advanced from the original composition of hydrogen and helium, to the production of heavier elements, star formation and destruction, planetary formation, geology, biology etc. All without any need for a mystical deity to magically poof matter, life etc into existence.
Invoking something more complex (i.e. God/s) to explain something less complex (universe) is ignorance beyond belief.
One question.
List the holes in evolution: Remembering evolution is the natural progression of life through natural selection, and NOT the history of the universe.
__________________ Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof. [Ashley Montagu]
unbelievable. Yes, the same people that are manipulating google results with ease have done that as well. I wouldn't touch the guy's page and it wouldn't help me anyway. He even posted on his site that I tried to come to an understanding with him but he wants to keep trashing. The guys on there brag about googling me repeatedly and then post other links where they can trash me personally. Stop accusing me of things as this is getting really disgusting.
hello, i understand your views that design indicates a designer, that is clear for billions to understand, dont worry about what the people who live on these forums have to say, they are the minority in this world, they think they know it all, but really dont know how deep the rabbit hole goes,
they think that because they can understand some processes that that rules out any divine intervention, i heard the other day someone explaining the 10 plagues of ancient egypt, with algae and all these natural explanations saying god had nothing to do with it, just because they see how it works,they simply cannot understand that god uses natural procceses to achieve what he wants ,
some people are not meant to see the wonder of life, i would not bother to try to enlighten them, and yes it is true that they underestimate the complexity of life and the universe saying "its possible" for it to happen by chance ,all the while having little to no idea or proof or explanation how that could happen, this is why billions believe in a creator, who cares what the fringe groups say, the science of god for me is easy to grasp, the only thing that makes me doubt god is the fact that life appears to be so random, some sick some healthy, some happy some not,some rich some poor, in my opinion we have all been abandoned by god, and he does not want us to believe or know about him,
i say just drink, smoke ,eat and be merry for tommorow we die
hello, i understand your views that design indicates a designer, that is clear for billions to understand, dont worry about what the people who live on these forums have to say, they are the minority in this world, they think they know it all, but really dont know how deep the rabbit hole goes,
Outside the US, creationists are a minority. I don't even think their a majority in the US, but I'm not certain. Certainly among scientists, they're a tiny tiny proportion.
some people are not meant to see the wonder of life, i would not bother to try to enlighten them,
Who sais theists have a monopoly on seeing wonder in the universe?
they underestimate the complexity of life and the universe saying "its possible" for it to happen by chance
Do you believe it is possible for Chemical reactions "to happen by chance"?
the science of god for me is easy to grasp,
So if something is easy it must be true?
__________________ Boku o mitte, boku o mitte
Boku no naka de, kaibutsu ga okii narimashita
- Namae nai no Kaibutsu, Kaus Poppe
Little Miss 1665 her soul remains unclaimed.
Guess she must have really sinned now
- The Offspring, Jennifer Lost the War.
No, what he said was far worse, a set of thinly veiled insults leveled at anyone not a pseudo-christian book worshipper like him. I have never seen any evidence that any of his Gods appreciate this level of deceit and malice, but nevertheless his ilk pour it out in rivers.
__________________ I hear stories from the chamber / How Christ was born into a manger
And like some ragged stranger / Died upon the cross
And might I say it seems so fitting in its way
He was a carpenter by trade / Or at least that's what I'm told
--Mercy Seat, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
It's astounding how atheists can condone libel, harassing phone calls, google stalking, etc. because they disagree with an opinion. I had as many say so directly on Richard Dawkins when I asked them to intervene. At least they're more upfront than the posters here.
At least they were until they became aware of the full facts
They also linked to this thread so people on Dawkins.net could enjoy this thread as well.
If you are trawling the internet looking for sympathy I think you are going to be bang out of luck. The other guy seems to have evidence and you have none.
Personally I hope he sues you for a pretty penny in court, if anyone called me a Paedophile I'd want to hang them out to dry.
I didn't touch anyone's wikipedia page btw, and the same guys who claimed I did are actually repeatedly trashing mine (though I've informed the admins and they've asked me to notify them of any future attacks).
This would all get sorted out in court.
You guys are really sick and that's all I have to say.
And you appear to be digging an ever deeper hole for yourself, which isn't very bright
__________________ A scientist, it's official
" The result, therefore, of this physical enquiry is that we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end" James Hutton, from his 1788 paper to the Royal Society of Edinburgh on the principles of geology
Linear Mode
