XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: f00@0f0.00f   
      
   Andrew wrote:   
   > "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.   
   >   
      
   truth?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)