XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: f00@0f0.00f   
      
   Dawn Flood wrote:   
   > 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!)   
   >   
      
   dawn do you have a physics or math degree? i wanted to do   
   something in science mostly.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)