Creationist Translationist

Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1979, but your average #YoungEarthCreationist is as misinformed and dangerous as ever. I can help you #Translate what they're actually saying when they bastardize modern science in favor of dogmatic presuppositions.

@LewisRalph38093 @MentallyNathan @oliverburdick I like to let people who've never studied biology for 5 minutes show me just how intellectually dishonest and/or pompous they are. You're 10/10, champ.

@JustinCPorter @MentallyNathan @oliverburdick No more word? Silent and defeated? I love it 😉

Reminder: The rainbow is a symbol of God, not gayness.

@LewisRalph38093 @MentallyNathan @oliverburdick • UC Berkeley Evolution 101 → evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/ • OpenStax Biology (free textbook) → openstax.org/details/books/… • Evidence of evolution (fossils, DNA, etc.) → bio.libretexts.org... • Free textbook: Primer of Evolution → irl.umsl.edu/oer/36/ Read. Learn.

@JustinCPorter @MentallyNathan @oliverburdick Wait im waiting for your Irrefutable amd Scientific Epxlanaition with Mutation theory and Genetic science come on, was it a Special Fish? Maybe a magical fish? Why haven't these mutations happened since? Or ever observed? And the Bible is Truth FOOL. No matter how much you cry

@LewisRalph38093 @MentallyNathan @oliverburdick

@JustinCPorter @MentallyNathan @oliverburdick Oh boy and Jesus command over demons, if you thi k that's ridiculous you should study what Politicions practice around the world, Powerful people like Presidents. Doctors, Scientists and Nobel prize winner ALL RELIGIOUS. only a dumb fool is an atheist. How do you explain that?

@LewisRalph38093 @MentallyNathan @oliverburdick "a Fish started to walk and talk and became a monkey and then became a Human" Good job. Beat the ever-loving 💩out of your clueless, #StrawMan version of common ancestry as a defense mechanism for your incest mythology, which includes zombies and exorcisms lol.

@JustinCPorter @MentallyNathan @oliverburdick Oh and yes a belive a talking snake is more realistic that the Stupid Darwinist saying a Fish started to walk and talk and became a monkey and then became a Human, please elaborate how that happened and why it hasn't happened sense? Why haven't we witnessed Evolution?

@Bearrun @_Ochiedike @HEPHZIBAHr6 sigh. You’re demanding I define evil to avoid answering a question about your own behavior. Use your definition, big boy. Are you only moral because of religion or not?

@JustinCPorter @_Ochiedike @HEPHZIBAHr6 I spent this whole time asking the same two questions over and over and you and these other guy's refuse to answer. My definition of evil, literally has NOTHING to do with the argument. It's what I'd like to call obfuscation, cause you niggas don't wanna answer a simple question.

Do you need religion to have morals? Yes or no

@LewisRalph38093 @MentallyNathan @oliverburdick You're embarrassed by your Iron Age incest mythology, which includes a talking snake and a talking donkey... i get it. Hey, remember when Jesus performed an exorcism on a guy, then moved the demons into some pigs, who then drowned themselves in the sea? 🤣

@JustinCPorter @MentallyNathan @oliverburdick "I dont read the Bible,make stupid comments on the internet,omit facts like all the humans were evil in their hearts only Noah,there were Nephilim canabalist killing animal and human life,and I want we all this to continue because I side with the Agresos not the victums" got it😂

@Bearrun @_Ochiedike @HEPHZIBAHr6 You’ve spent this whole time arguing about definitions to avoid answering a basic question about your own behavior. That says more than any answer would. Be mean to me, daddy.

@JustinCPorter @_Ochiedike @HEPHZIBAHr6 The question entails there is evil and a definition of evil absent religion, therefore he is presupposing evil. You can't be this stupid bro.

@LewisRalph38093 @MentallyNathan @oliverburdick All the babies and animals (except for the ones who made it to Noah's family fun ride) deserved to die. Got it.

@JustinCPorter @MentallyNathan @oliverburdick HahHAha the Death Worshipper is YOU FOOL. All the Suffering going on in those days, all the murder, all the Atrocities and you wanted it to Continue, for people to Suffer?!?! THE animals were SAVED! there is animals all of them today, Humanity was able to Survive. WICKED FOOL 🖕

@Bearrun @_Ochiedike @HEPHZIBAHr6 The question "do you need religion to have morals" is not a presupposition.... ?

@JustinCPorter @_Ochiedike @HEPHZIBAHr6 You're right, it's a question to his presuppositions, thanks for clarifying wise guy.

@Bearrun @_Ochiedike @HEPHZIBAHr6 Cool story. Answer my question using your definition, then I'll tell you my definition of evil and how I determine what is and isn't evil.

@JustinCPorter @_Ochiedike @HEPHZIBAHr6 Except im asking for your definition, what is evil, and how you determine the evil as i did in my initial post, not once did I argue you need religion to have ethics. The burden is not on me to address an argument I didn't even make, so quit obfuscating.

@Bearrun @_Ochiedike @HEPHZIBAHr6 I'm willing to use whatever definition of ‘evil’ you personally believe in for the sake of you answering this question. That question is whether religion is the only thing stopping you from doing such things.

@JustinCPorter @_Ochiedike @HEPHZIBAHr6 What is evil?

@aesius1 @The_Archangel_1 That is how plausibility is shown. You test the mechanism (like, protein stabilization via iron), measure how it slows decay, and compare it to what’s actually found in fossils. If the results match, it’s plausible. That’s the standard used in science.

@JustinCPorter @The_Archangel_1 What do any of those other things have to do with what we are talking about? We are talking about a very specific mechanism, explain how testing can show ITS plausibility.

#Translation I've argued with atheists for SIX years, so I'm kind of an expert on evolutionary biology....

@aesius1 @The_Archangel_1 That’s not how testing works. You test the chemistry (rates, stability, conditions, etc.) and compare it to real samples. That's evidence. If you reject extrapolation, you just threw out radiometric dating, astronomy, geology and physics. That's intellectually dishonest.

@JustinCPorter @The_Archangel_1 Explain how they can possibly be tested to be shown effective when the target is 65+million years? And I don't want to hear extrapolation, because that is just speculation.

@aesius1 @The_Archangel_1 You’re rejecting tested chemical mechanisms and replacing them with "therefore Earth is young" with no model and no tests. That’s not skepticism, that’s just making things up and cherry-picking the science you like. Repeatability applies to the mechanisms, dude.

@JustinCPorter @The_Archangel_1 🤣 dude, if you can't make repeatable tests, you are speculating. The fact that they find these soft tissues points to a younger age, not that there needs to be some sort of process that preserves them. That is forcing the evidence to fit the narrative.

#Translation 9 million kids dying of starvation each year isn't a bad thing when you believe in a talking donkey and snake.

@aesius1 @The_Archangel_1 Your entire argument is ‘if I can’t watch it for 65 million years, it’s not real.’ That’s not science. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how evidence and testing work. And yes; science does adapt. That’s why new evidence about preservation gets studied and explained. 🤦

@JustinCPorter @The_Archangel_1 It's not even showing that it is plausible. It's speculation. That's it. Showing it's possible would require deep-time trials. 🤦‍♂️ And this notion that science adapts is hilarious as well. They adapt as long as it doesn't change the narrative. Not the other way around.

@aesius1 @The_Archangel_1 Dp you really not know the difference between "X is possible and plausible" and "X definitely happened"? Profound levels of ineptitude, fellow primate. It's like you are wholly unaware that science adapts in light of new information.

@JustinCPorter @The_Archangel_1 Again, the literature doesn't prove anything. These "mechanisms" are nothing more than speculative. In fact scientists needed to change the assertions they made before that soft tissues couldn't last that long because this new evidence doesn't fit their narrative. 🤦‍♂️

@aesius1 @The_Archangel_1 You asserted long term preservation was impossible without any awareness of the details, or the literature showing the many ways that it is possible. Thats on you, fellow primate.

@JustinCPorter @The_Archangel_1 You literally talked down to me, as if you had proof of these soft tissues being possible as a result of these "mechanisms". I'm not the one who can't follow the conversation. 🤦‍♂️

@aesius1 @The_Archangel_1 I never once said that because something is published, that proves it is true. You can't even follow this conversation. No wonder you can't follow the current scientific literature or have a good faith conversation. You are a fake.

@JustinCPorter @The_Archangel_1 Yes, not once, but twice did you cite the published materials on the subject as if it was some sort of proof that soft tissue can somehow be preserved for 65+million years. Yet forgot to use common sense in realizing that these "tests" will be nothing more than speculation. 🤦‍♂️