XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/4/2025 1:22 PM, Andrew wrote:   
   > "Kenito Benito" wrote in message   
   > news:60gibkdbr2hipne0ai0nt75s7v48t1vmk2@4ax.com...   
   >> "Andrew" wrote:   
   >>> "Kenito Benito" wrote:   
   >>>> "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."                          
   Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  ~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.   
   >   
   > Yes.   
   >   
   >> As such, you are making the claim she is.   
   >   
   > Her position 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 apparently believe that. That the origin of all things is explained   
   > by the fantasized explosion of   
   > a primordial cosmic egg that came from nothing.   
   >   
   > Although blatantly contrary to the laws of science,   
   > nevertheless you believe~ by faith. Yet you still fail to understand how   
   > foolish your position is.   
   >   
      
   Andrew,   
      
   We've posted about this so many times:   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model   
      
   You can find these sorts of ideas in The Physical Review Letters; just   
   Google it.  Per the physicists, no Conservation Laws need be violated!!   
      
   Dawn   
      
   P.S.  Non-Euclidean geometry is really (really!) hard!!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)