the accomplishments of creation " science "

a reply to: ChesterJohn

So much for...

Let's get back on topic.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Read the Authorized Bible. Samson the Strong man lived 200 years before the Greek Myth of hercules appeared. Just need to get yourself a Bible program.

But this is off topic I feel If you want to know more you start a thread on it and Invite me via PM to join in and I will point you into the right verse that speak on those things with the dates of their happenings.

My Stalker likes to antagonize, he has been reported to ATS from others and myself for his behaviour but he has yet to change.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You know those allegations are off topic and against the T&Cs, right?

They’re also not very christian, but I don’t expect you, a fake christian, to be anything else.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Read the Authorized Bible. Samson the Strong man lived 200 years before the Greek Myth of hercules appeared. Just need to get yourself a Bible program.

So because your fairy tale book says so, it must be true?

Why don’t you just ignore that bit? You ignore other parts. Like following what Jesus supposedly says. Instead, you do what Paul says.

a reply to: TerryDon79

No you are a fairy's tail.

Let's talk creationism. If not bug off.

Like I said before you are the most religious person I know you even want me to follow only what Jesus Say's which was largely and in part only to the Jews, and not rightly divide the word of Truth as he inspired a Paul to write.

Why don't you drop all your beliefs and not be so christian.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Read the Authorized Bible. Samson the Strong man lived 200 years before the Greek Myth of hercules appeared. Just need to get yourself a Bible program.

But this is off topic I feel If you want to know more you start a thread on it and Invite me via PM to join in and I will point you into the right verse that speak on those things with the dates of their happenings.

My Stalker likes to antagonize, he has been reported to ATS from others and myself for his behaviour but he has yet to change.

The Greek myth is of Heracles, not Hercules - the latter is Roman.
I barely know where to start. How about the fact that both are legends? Just because the bible says something that does not mean that it's true. According to the bible there were camels in Judea, centuries before their remains can be found there. In addition the bible says that pi = 3. No.
The primary issue I have with Samson = Heracles is that Samson fought the Philistines. The origin of the latter is a matter of some dispute, but there is some archaeological evidence (my favourite kind) that they came from the area of Greece called Mycenae and that they had been a part of the Sea Peoples. Why is that a problem? Well, the Sea Peoples rose out of the chaos of the Late Bronze Age Collapse. Heracles was said to have sacked Troy long before that and in fact before the Trojan War, which preceded the Late Bronze Age Collapse.
There are also no similarities between the tales of the two, other than the fact that both were strong.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerryDon79

No you are a fairy's tail.

Let's talk creationism. If not bug off.

Really? How old are you?

LOL

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

sorry finger dyslexia it doesn't matter they got them all from the OT Bible. the Greek and Roman Pantheon actually came from before Alexander the great when the Canaanites were still int eh land and had worshiped a number of gods Baal/Eros Athena/Astheroth(sp?) and out side that land up and until Mohammad decided his Allah also know ans Zeus/Jupiter the chief among the gods and all the other gods are stolen from myths before Greece was a formidable military threat tot he region.

So you see the Greek and Roman Mythologies were taken from societies before they were ever in power.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerryDon79

No you are a fairy's tail.

Let's talk creationism. If not bug off.

Like I said before you are the most religious person I know you even want me to follow only what Jesus Say's which was largely and in part only to the Jews, and not rightly divide the word of Truth as he inspired a Paul to write.

Why don't you drop all your beliefs and not be so christian.

Talking about creationism will only lead to facts being deployed, which some will regard as a cruel and unusual punishment.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

And we’re back into the “you’re religious” nonesense.

Its funny how angry and childish you get. I’m sure your god would be super proud!

a reply to: TerryDon79

But it is true, why you deny the truth is unbelievable.

But if you want to discuss it further. Please start a thread on it and I will join you there. You even think you are a god knowing my heart to be, what "Angry and childish" the pot calling the kettle black I believe.

But here we are talking about the creationist and how they fail, and I added how so called science is also a failure in that all of it is based on false opinions by men who were frauds.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

But here we are talking about the creationist and how they fail,

Which a lot do. Like yourself.

and I added how so called science is also a failure in that all of it is based on false opinions by men who were frauds.

Says the person on an electrical device, on the internet, using a website. Let me guess, your god created it all? LOL

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerryDon79

But it is true, why you deny the truth is unbelievable.

But if you want to discuss it further. Please start a thread on it and I will join you there. You even think you are a god knowing my heart to be, what "Angry and childish" the pot calling the kettle black I believe.

But here we are talking about the creationist and how they fail, and I added how so called science is also a failure in that all of it is based on false opinions by men who were frauds.

I am going to keep quoting all your ORIGINAL posts, as you are showing an interesting habit of going back and adding substantially to your past posts. If you must do that then add the new material at the bottom with the word 'EDIT:' above it. It's dishonest otherwise.
Going back to the list that you failed to prove had any frauds on it. Please do so. Cites, please.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Some misspelled words, grammar corrections and some added words for clarification but still the same data nothing taken away. I assure you.

The list pertains to those who are looked upon as being the leading minds of the day of which their opinions were exalted to be scientific fact with no proof number one, Number two not a one of them was an actual scientist in any field of study that pertained to evolution however all wrote about evolution as if they were an authority. Number three they all say that all we needed to do was observe the world around us to understand what has taken place in the past, yet we have yet to see any proof of evolution in nature today. We have seen crossbreeds of sparrows that men have classified as a new species but there was not change in them to point to evolution being a fact.

The only observable truth is this, nothing new under the sun. And when we observe the nature today nothing comes form it except enthropy and destruction no new creatures or advancements in any biological being.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

So what you’re really wanting, is a fish to change into a bird over night.

Evolution doesn’t work like that, dear.

But let’s get back to creationist science, because, you know, you want to stay on topic.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Sorry Wikipedia is all you have. and half the stuff they wrote about the men in the list is conjecture and opinion on the wiki contributors part which the wiki editors agree with. Much like peer reviews work. It doesn't matter if it's truth or not only that it agrees with their peers views as well.

I have placed things based on facts in Wikipedia only to have it removed solely on the premise that they don't agree with it. I challenged them and you know what they said. "Start your own website encyclopedia then". They never proved a single point I placed on numerous Wikipedia pages to be false. It was just not agreeing with their agenda.

I wrote about the erroneous hockey stick in climate change chart and how it was based on opinions and conjectures and not fact. I even pointed that the chart actually dips down not up. and they removed in back in 2003, when it was still called global warming. and since then It was proven to be based on faulty scientific conjecture and opinion. And I have been blacklisted from Wikipedia for life no matter what email I use because of my real name is attached to the IP I am not allowed to show truths and the errors of many of the Wikipedia's contributors.

One contributor not only had my info on the Nebra sky disk removed, he then claimed it as his own work and published it and was given peer review and awarded for it. I could go to Germany and if I could hire a good legal team I would sue him. But I am not of this world and don't need their accolades for my work for which he stole word for word off of Wikipedia.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Well terry, they did say we could "observe nature today to see the key to the Past" but the only thing we see is just the opposite. Men have been observing nature since 4000 BC and no beast or man has evolved, only crossbred. 6 to 7 thousand years should have provided something. Oh, but it has we can see nothing from nature today that proves to be the key to the past.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerryDon79

Well terry, they did say we could "observe nature today to see the key to the Past" but the only thing we see is just the opposite. Men have been observing nature since 4000 BC and no beast or man has evolved, only crossbred. 6 to 7 thousand years should have provided something. Oh, but it has we can see nothing from nature today that proves to be the key to the past.

Well, that’s a lie.

There’s been quite a few things that have evolved in the past 4000 years. It’s just most of them are minor changes (relatively speaking).

But we should all believe you, right? The guy who thinks maths is wrong (yet uses it every single day), wishes everyone got killed, lies (and admits it) and doesn’t have a basic understanding of the subject he’s trying to argue against. Yeah, let’s just believe you, dear.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

So how about we get back on topic?

Creation science.

The morons who think we rode dinosaurs, yet can’t prove it.

The same people who think everything is only 6000 years old, but can’t prove it (they even try using C14 dating of dinosaur bones, but they got dated earlier than 6000 years LOL).

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Sorry Wikipedia is all you have. and half the stuff they wrote about the men in the list is conjecture and opinion on the wiki contributors part which the wiki editors agree with. Much like peer reviews work. It doesn't matter if it's truth or not only that it agrees with their peers views as well.

I have placed things based on facts in Wikipedia only to have it removed solely on the premise that they don't agree with it. I challenged them and you know what they said. "Start your own website encyclopedia then". They never proved a single point I placed on numerous Wikipedia pages to be false. It was just not agreeing with their agenda.

I wrote about the erroneous hockey stick in climate change chart and how it was based on opinions and conjectures and not fact. I even pointed that the chart actually dips down not up. and they removed in back in 2003, when it was still called global warming. and since then It was proven to be based on faulty scientific conjecture and opinion. And I have been blacklisted from Wikipedia for life no matter what email I use because of my real name is attached to the IP I am not allowed to show truths and the errors of many of the Wikipedia's contributors.

One contributor not only had my info on the Nebra sky disk removed, he then claimed it as his own work and published it and was given peer review and awarded for it. I could go to Germany and if I could hire a good legal team I would sue him. But I am not of this world and don't need their accolades for my work for which he stole word for word off of Wikipedia.

I see. So in other words you've been banned by Wikipedia - Wikipedia - because you 'correct' other people with what you think of as the truth. That says a great deal about you. By the way your comments on the hockey stick graph are not correct as the graph is being validated with every passing - and warmer - year.
As for me, I have books. Lot's of 'em. Including a biography or two of Hutton, Darwin, etc.