XPost: alt.paranormal, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: f00@0f0.00f   
      
   None wrote:   
   > On Sep 6, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote   
   > (Message-ID: <109igbl$3b0jk$1@dont-email.me>):   
   >   
   >> 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!)   
   >   
   > ROTFLOL, women know a lot about Cosmetics. ;)   
   > Cosmetologist is a high demand Job in Hollywood and TV. ;)   
   >   
   >   
      
   cosmetics is basically clown-lite, right?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)