XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: andrew.321.remov@usa.net   
      
   "Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:109enfc$2e27b$1@dont-email.me...   
   > Andrew wrote:   
   >> "Kenito Benito" wrote:   
   >>> "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.   
   >>>> >>> 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!!   
      
   Hypothesized models may sound plausible,.but they   
   exist only in the realm of fantasy. Those who want   
   the truth will not abandon the established laws of   
   science.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)