XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy
XPost: alt.religion.christian
From: Kenito@Benito.naw
On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 02:49:59 -0700, "Andrew"
wrote:
>"Kenito Benito" wrote in message news:a9sfbkds9fthg535527rndaph
vs11lvbv@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Dawn Flood:
>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>> "Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> PRIOR TO DARWIN, THE DOMINANT VIEW AMONG SCHOLARS WAS CREATIONISM!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Get it now?! Yes, Darwin got some things wrong! Here's Darwin's BIG
>>>>>> contribution:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NATURALISM REPLACED SUPERNATURALISM AS THE EXPLANATION FOR LIFE!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you need me to make things clearer for you??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dawn
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Dawn, but you see, Without a Creation there would be no
naturalism.
>
>Unrefuted fact, again pointing to Creation.
>
>>>>> Furthermore, conviction often came to him (Darwin) that he was devoting
>>>>> his life to a phantasy. He said that often a "cold shudder" would run
trough
>>>>> his body testifying to that fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
>>>>> myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
>>>>> ~Darwin
>>>> Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> Don't start! Okay??
>>>
>>>Why do folks like you get nervous like this? Because you
>>>have been exposed to truth that exposes your position to be
>>>indefensible. And that you stand on a platform that is false.
>>
>> Dawn is a creationist? I'm surprised.
>
>No.
>
But above you claim Dawn's position is indefensible. As such, you
are making the claim she is.
> >>> P.S. If you want to explore Creationism (again!), then
>>>> start another thread in a.a.
>>>
>>>It is _YOUR_ above that I am responding to!
>>>
>>>I saw you were talking about naturalism and creationism.
>>>I'm simply pointing out to you the simple fact that, with-
>>>out a creation there could not possibly be any 'naturalism'.
>>
>> Everything exists. How it got to this point is the question.
>
>Where did it start? Do you ever connsider that?
>
The "Big Bang" is where everything started.
>> You believe a god is behind it. And being intellectually honest,
>> I can't say it's false outright. There is no way to prove or disprove
>> the existence of a god.
>
>No, I disavow all 'gods'. I only acknowledge the true and living God.
>
Saule is a pretty good one. Or do you mean Balor? Maybe Juracan?
There is a near endless list of gods. And each one has the same
level of evidence for its existence.
Your belief is not proof. It's not even evidence.
>> Evolution, as used here, is also not something we can prove or
>> disprove. We can't live long enough. We can, and do, offer evidence
>> that supports it, however.
>
>We all have the same evidence. And it all points to Creation.
Except that it doesn't. You ignore what you don't like and
doesn't fit your immaculate misconception.
If you wish to believe in "Intelligent Design," fine. I don't
have a problem with it. Really. I don't agree, but I accept that you
believe it.
>Although you were taught otherwise, it is now time for you
>to wake up!
>
I am awake. All empirical evidence to date shows there was/is no
deity responsible for anything. It's not proof, as used in this
context, but it does support evolution.
>>>Unless you understood that, then you would forever be
>>>fighting against the TRUTH And to fight "against the
>>>truth" always ends in futility; and exposes oneself to
>>>be a fool.
>>>
>>>So don't start! Okay??
>>
>> You've already proved yourself the fool.
At least you don't waste time denying this truth. That's
refreshing.
--
Kenito Benito
Strategic Writer,
Psychotronic World Dominator.
And FEMA camp counselor.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
