XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/6/2025 2:17 PM, Andrew wrote:   
   > "Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:109hoef$350ek$3@dont-email.me...   
   >> Andrew wrote:   
   >>> "Dawn Flood" wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> You've never read these papers, Andrew, and you never will.  (I've   
   >> read a couple of them.)  I've invited you to email the American   
   >> Physical Society (the publishers of The Physical Review Letters) with   
   >> your concerns, criticisms, etc., and you've never done that and you   
   >> never will.   
   >   
   > Although this is a discussion group, Dawn finds that she is unable.   
   > Therefore she refers us to the high priests of her religion. But the   
   > problem is, it is a false religion.   
   > Although she cannot explain it, she is a *believer* by faith. And   
   > says that if we have any questions to --> "go to them"; and don't ask   
   > her, because it is ~ over her head!   
   >   
      
   Yep, physics & math are hard subjects, that is true.  Unless you know   
   (without looking it up!) what a "metric" is, and in particular, the FLRW   
   metric, you know nothing about cosmology, and you really do need to stop   
   pontificating.   
      
   Dawn   
      
   P.S.  I know what both of those things from above are, but yet, I am not   
   a cosmologist.  (Although, I do know a fair bit of cosmetology!)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)