XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: Kenito@Benito.naw   
      
   On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 11:22:56 -0700, "Andrew"    
   wrote:   
      
   >"Kenito Benito" wrote in message news:60gibkdbr2hipne0ai0nt75s7   
   48t1vmk2@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."   
   >>>>>>>                                                  ~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.   
   >   
      
        Again you claim she is a creationist.   
        Pick a lane.   
      
   >>> >>> 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.   
   >   
      
        You hold the belief that everything appeared over six days from   
   nothing.   
        The difference is, I admit I cannot prove The Big Bang. I can   
   only cite evidence that supports it. You lack that level of honesty,   
   since you lack that level of evidence.   
      
   >Although blatantly contrary to the laws of science,   
   >nevertheless you believe~ by faith. Yet you still   
   >fail to understand how foolish your position is.   
   >   
      
        Because it's not foolish. There is evidence that supports it.   
      
   >>>>     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.   
   >>   
      
        I appreciate your not trying to deny the truth.   
      
   >>>>     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.   
   >>   
      
        Should everyone reading accept your "running away" from this as   
   your admission I was, and am, correct?   
      
   >>>>>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)