Dalamama:


You are a liar. You went to bring an old poll conducted since 2012 to prove a non existent point. Latest polls say that more Americans believe evolution.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

The poll very clearly stated that less-educated Americans more likely to believe in creationism.

That is not my point and the very next time you call me a liar you will get banned.

My point is that for any poll there is always a counter poll. If you too cannot grasp the understanding of what you read then deal with that deficiency

Dalamama:


The guy is dangerous, he won't ever stop telling lies. His lies are just endless. He mentioned Hugh Ross as an example of a Christian scientist but Hugh Ross is an evolutionists. He even debates young earth creationist like Ken Ham and tells them. That they are wrong. Yet this Butterflyliar is mentioning him.

Chai!!!!

Butterflyleo!!! Your lies are becoming too many. You can't sugarcoat them anymore!

Butterflyleo:


That is not my point and the very next time you call me a liar you will get banned.

My point is that for any poll there is always a counter poll. If you too cannot grasp the understanding of what you read then deal with that deficiency

For every poll, there is a counter poll? So there is no useful or accurate poll in the world?

You dey lie!!!

superhumanist:



For every poll, there is a counter poll? So there is no useful or accurate poll in the world?

You dey lie!!!

Polls are a guide and often not a reality. You said so yourself remember? Remember my talk with you about China and the polls that show China would be the next largest christian nation come 2030?

You instead threw the poll away and focused on what you term was the reality on ground. True or false?

Based on this I should be the one calling you a hypocrite for what you are now saying here but am I doing so?

Not everyone needs to be as childish and myopic as you are you know.

I can still show you your own comments in that discussion that can easily make me call you a hypocrite here and now. Should I do so?

Butterflyleo:


Polls are a guide and often not a reality. You said so yourself remember? Remember my talk with you about China and the polls that show China would be the next largest christian nation come 2030?

You instead threw the poll away and focused on what you term was the reality on ground. True or false?

Based on this I should be the one calling you a hypocrite for what you are now saying here but am I doing so?

Not everyone needs to be as childish and myopic as you are you know.

I can still show you your own comments in that discussion that can easily make me call you a hypocrite here and now. Should I do so?

Ogbeni, stop trying to change the topic. The china issue is that you ignored the real statistics. 50 million christians is a huge number but in China, that is less than 10% (A billion people)


The issue here is that it was not even a poll I produced. I posted a study that showed that higher education correlates with belief in evolution. You are running around claiming it is wrong without any proof or logical counterargument.

superhumanist:



Ogbeni, stop trying to change the topic. The china issue is that you ignored the real statistics. 50 million christians is a huge number but in China, that is less than 10% (A billion people)


The issue here is that it was not even a poll I produced. I posted a study that showed that higher education correlates with belief in evolution. You are running around claiming it is wrong without any proof or logical counterargument.

A study is a poll. Regarding China a study was done as a poll and I showed it to you. That study was a projection to 2030 based on an observed trend but you would rather discard it and focus on a present situation despite the trend which led to a projection into 2030 and which made them arrive at that projection also capturing the present which you focused on instead.

This is one of the many reasons I keep saying you read but never understand.

And FYI I am not changing the topic. I am simply showing you that you have no idea of what you are even talking about. I could also say that the reality on ground speak otherwise to the claim that the more the education the more the acceptance of evolution after all the renowned late atheist Anthony flew as educated as he was ended up embracing God and creationism. So why didn't your study work with him?

Also renowned theoretical Physicist Michio Kaku through the study of primitive semi – radius tachyons came to the conclusion and I quote him

" the universe was created through design, and not random chaos and that we could be living in a type of “matrix”.

Why did he not lean towards evolution? Why didn't your study work on him?

Alister McGrath was a former atheist and a scientist but his high level of education and what he saw during his many years of exposure to science led him to Christianity and to creationism

Why didn't your study work with him?

Butterflyleo:


A study is a poll. Regarding China a study was done as a poll and I showed it to you. That study was a projection to 2030 based on an observed trend but you would rather discard it and focus on a present situation despite the trend which led to a projection into 2030 and which made them arrive at that projection also capturing the present which you focused on instead.

This is one of the many reasons I keep saying you read but never understand.

And FYI I am not changing the topic. I am simply showing you that you have no idea of what you are even talking about. I could also say that the reality on ground speak otherwise to the claim that the more the education the more the acceptance of evolution after all the renowned late atheist Anthony flew as educated as he was ended up embracing God and creationism. So why didn't your study work with him?

What is this one saying?


Ogbeni. Let us leave China as that is not the topic.

Answer the issue at hand


1. Where is your proof that higher education is positively correlated with creationism?

2. Where is your counterargument for the study based fact that higher education is positively correlated with acceptance of evolution?

superhumanist:



What is this one saying?


Ogbeni. Let us leave China as that is not the topic.

Answer the issue at hand


1. Where is your proof that higher education is positively correlated with creationism?

2. Where is your counterargument for the study based fact that higher education is positively correlated with acceptance of evolution?

Why do you suddenly want me to leave out China when this was exactly what you did when I presented the polls and study for China to you on another thread?

My proof is in the reality same way your proof when I presented the China polls to you was in the present reality.

I have shown you highly scientifically educated individuals who became creationists through their higher exposure to education. Do you deny them as true?

Michio Kaku was the major person who made the string theory very popular and he is well respected in scientific circles yet his high exposures in education led him to creationism. Why didn't your study work with him IN REALITY?

Butterflyleo:


That is not my point and the very next time you call me a liar you will get banned.

My point is that for any poll there is always a counter poll. If you too cannot grasp the understanding of what you read then deal with that deficiency

You went and brought a poll conducted in 2012 when you know that there are more recent polls and that views change over time. You lied that the more educated people are the more they are likely to believe in creationism. Where is your evidence for that? Remember you are on record to have said that people should always provide proof for their claims. Where is yours? Hypocrite!

Butterflyleo:
Also renowned theoretical Physicist Michio Kaku through the study of primitive semi – radius tachyons came to the conclusion and I quote him



Why did he not lean towards evolution? Why didn't your study work on him?

Why do you tell lies so shamelessly?

Michio Kaku is an evolutionists. You clearly do not even know who you are talking about. Don't come around here telling empty lies.

Michio Kaku believes that human consiousnes is as a result of evolution.

Here is a direct quote from him.

"So what I’m saying is I have a new theory of consciousness based on evolution. "

http://bigthink.com/big-think-tv/the-origin-of-intelligence

That is his interview in the link. He believes the universe itself evolved. He is a strong propponent of evolution. I really do not even know why you quoted him. He is NOT a creationist, he is even an atheist.

Dalamama:


Why do you tell lies so shamelessly?

Michio Kaku is an evolutionists. You clearly do not even know who you are talking about. Don't come around here telling empty lies.

Michio Kaku believes that human consiousnes is as a result of evolution.

Here is a direct quote from him.

"So what I’m saying is I have a new theory of consciousness based on evolution. "

http://bigthink.com/big-think-tv/the-origin-of-intelligence

That is his interview in the link. He believes the universe itself evolved. He is a strong propponent of evolution. I really do not even know why you quoted him. He is NOT a creationist, he is even an atheist.

I will not call you a liar as you are fond of callibg anyone who disagrees with your views because that would not help your ignorance.

This is from kaku.

The Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies quoted Kaku as saying, "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."

Reacting to that public comment, Kaku said: "That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: Sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God."

"Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable," Kaku says. "That’s called 'science.' However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God." He's noted that discerning whether you live in a Matrix-style construct or not would be another such 'non-falsifiable' problem.

Kaku is a Pantheist and below is who a pantheist is

Pantheism is the belief that reality is identical with divinity, or that all-things compose as all-encompassing, immanent God or that theism is all and all is theism.

pantheism is the polar opposite of atheism so where you got the "he is an atheist" from is only known to you.

Butterflyleo:


I will not call you a liar as you are fond of callibg anyone who disagrees with your views because that would not help your ignorance.

This is from kaku.



Kaku is a Pantheist and below is who a pantheist is



pantheism is the polar opposite of atheism so where you got the "he is an atheist" from is only known to you.

As you can see even from your own post he disagreed with the statement that was attributed to him by the Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural and made clarifications. He said he was misquoted.

From the link:

"In any event, when asked about God, Kaku is likely to quote Einstein’s suggestion that there are two types of god: “One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.”

It’s that second “God ”to which Kaku is drawn. He tells innovation tech today that the universe could have been random but that instead “Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant."

http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/michio-kaku-believes-in-god-if-not-that-god


He even admit that the universe could have been random. He even claims to have a theory on how human intelligence evolved. He is not a creationist.

Dalamama:


As you can see even from your own post he disagreed with the statement that was attributed to him by the Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural and made clarifications. He said he was misquoted.

From the link:

"In any event, when asked about God, Kaku is likely to quote Einstein’s suggestion that there are two types of god: “One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.”

It’s that second “God[b]” to which Kaku is drawn. He tells innovation tech today that the universe could have been random[/b], but that instead “Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant."

He even admit that the universe could have been random. He even claims to have a theory on how human intelligence evolved. He is not a creationist.

This is English and his very quote

I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance

Like I said, you just confirmed from your post that he is a pantheist and I have already defined pantheism to you and everyone knows pantheism is directly opposite to atheism. So I repeat, how you arrived at "he is an atheist" is only known to you.

And also based on your above words, you by yourself just called yourself a liar without any help from me.

Butterflyleo:


This is English and his very quote




Like I said, you just confirmed from your post that he is a pantheist and I have already defined pantheism to you and everyone knows pantheism is directly opposite to atheism. So I repeat, how you arrived at "he is an atheist" is only known to you.

He said he was misquoted. The quote you provided he said is NOT his position.

"Reacting to that public comment, Kaku said: "That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: Sometimes you get quoted incorrectly".

http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/michio-kaku-believes-in-god-if-not-that-god

He said he was quoted incorrectly.

Butterflyleo:


Why do you suddenly want me to leave out China when this was exactly what you did when I presented the polls and study for China to you on another thread?

My proof is in the reality same way your proof when I presented the China polls to you was in the present reality.

I have shown you highly scientifically educated individuals who became creationists through their higher exposure to education. Do you deny them as true?

Michio Kaku was the major person who made the string theory very popular and he is well respected in scientific circles yet his high exposures in education led him to creationism. Why didn't your study work with him IN REALITY?

Michio Kaku does not support creationism. The guy is a deist.
https://innotechtoday.com/michio-kaku-clears-god-discovery/

How can someone believe in string theory and then be a creationist? You dey mad?
Your lies never cease.......
=======================================================================

I shall take it that you have no argument against the fact that higher education is positively and strongly correlated with acceptance of evolution. This is because you have offered no proof and also tried to used dishonest tactics;

You have tried to to shoe-horn 3 failed arguments

1. Naming random scientists whom you claim believe in creationism (some of which believe in the opposite) rather than pointing to a study that creates a sample of scientists to research.


2. Bringing in my dismissal of your "christian China forecasts" in order to dismiss the study I brought up. Any forecast over 5 years is highly unreliable. Technology and climate make sure of that. Also a forecast is different from a poll or a study that is relevant in the present.



3. Trying to change the topic and not addressing the study I put up showing that higher education is positively correlated with acceptance of evolution.





checkmate!

superhumanist:



Michio Kaku does not support creationism. The guy is a deist.
https://innotechtoday.com/michio-kaku-clears-god-discovery/

How can someone believe in string theory and then be a creationist? You dey mad?
Your lies never cease.......
=======================================================================

I shall take it that you have no argument against the fact that higher education is positively and strongly correlated with acceptance of evolution. This is because you have offered no proof and also tried to used dishonest tactics;

You have tried to to shoe-horn 3 failed arguments

1. Naming random scientists whom you claim believe in creationism (some of which believe in the opposite) rather than pointing to a study that creates a sample of scientists to research.


2. Bringing in my dismissal of your "christian China forecasts" in order to dismiss the study I brought up. Any forecast over 5 years is highly unreliable. Technology and climate make sure of that. Also a forecast is different from a poll or a study that is relevant in the present.



3. Trying to change the topic and not addressing the study I put up showing that higher education is positively correlated with acceptance of evolution.





checkmate!

I say he is a pantheist, your fellow atheist has admitted he is a pantheist and here you come claiming deist. Lmao. Go and take several seats you know nothing

Dalamama:


He said he was misquoted. The quote you provided he said is NOT his position.

"Reacting to that public comment, Kaku said: "That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: Sometimes you get quoted incorrectly".

http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/michio-kaku-believes-in-god-if-not-that-god

He said he was quoted incorrectly.

He cleared the air by going further in explaining his words and I quote. Carefully read his explanation for his " misquoted" comment.

My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God."

"Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable," Kaku says. "That’s called 'science.' However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God." He's noted that discerning whether you live in a Matrix-style construct or not would be another such 'non-falsifiable' problem.

That is not the statement an atheist would make and going by his previous Spinoza approach to the universe he is a pantheist and pantheists DEIFY the universe . Atheism deifys NOTHING. That is why they are polar opposites.

Butterflyleo:


I say he is a pantheist, your fellow atheist has admitted he is a pantheist and here you come claiming deist. Lmao. Go and take several seats you know nothing

Ogbeni, that is not the issue. The issue here is education and creationism. Patheism and deism have overlapping themes he could be one or both.

Deist or pantheist, Michio Kaku is not a creationist. You lied that he was.



Oga, still waiting for your counterargument against the fact that the higher the education, the more likely one is to accept evolution.

superhumanist:


Ogbeni, that is not the issue. The issue here is education and creationism. Patheism and deism have overlapping themes he could be one or both.

Deist or pantheist, Michio Kaku is not a creationist. You lied that he was.



Oga, still waiting for your counterargument against the fact that the higher the education, the more likely one is to accept evolution.

Its now obvious that your blindness and lack of understanding are self afflicted. His very words again in quote below

I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance

Butterflyleo:


He cleared the air by going further in explaining his words and I quote. Carefully read his explanation for his " misquoted" comment.



That is not the statement an atheist would make and going by his previous Spinoza approach to the universe he is a pantheist and pantheists DEIFY the universe . Atheism deifys NOTHING. That is why they are polar opposites.

The statement insinuated that he's a creationist but he said he was misquoted.

He is a proponent of evolution.

Butterflyleo:


Its now obvious that your blindness and lack of understanding are self afflicted. His very words again in quote below

LIES!

That was not michio kaku. He was misquoted. You will forever be a liar.


How can someone say this and still be a creationist?
My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

"Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. That’s called science. However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God."

Dalamama:


The statement insinuated that he's a creationist but he said he was misquoted.

He is a proponent of evolution.

Don't mind butterflyleo the butterflyLIAR!

He thought we wouldnt research his claims.

Scammers always end up being caught because they get too confident in their lies!

They are stupidly superstitious. They are those seeking "SAME-SEX-MARRIAGE", 'cos they can't be bothered why Mother Nature makes Female with cavity and Male with joystick.

orisa37:
They are stupidly superstitious. They are those seeking "SAME-SEX-MARRIAGE", 'cos they can't be bothered why Mother Nature makes Female with cavity and Male with joystick.

Why aren't y'all vocal against anal sex between man and woman? is anal sex okay so long its between man and woman or anal sex is not okay at all?

Dalamama:


The statement insinuated that he's a creationist but he said he was misquoted.

He is a proponent of evolution.

Yet he said and I quote from another source

What was God thinking when the universe was created? That’s where we are going with this thing [the super collider]. … The universe… is quite beautiful… it could have been random… it could have been horrible… that’s what Einstein believed. 11:51-11:52 P.M., 1/29/2010, Coast to Coast A.M.. Michio Kakush reply to the host Art Bell

He used the word CREATED TWICE and order and rules and intelligence. He was now trying to explain what he meant as a scientist. He made it clear that if anyone implied from his comment that he was referring to God they should know that God cannot be proven or disproven by science since science would not be scientific if it goes outside science.

He only expanded his comment based on the understanding it was given.

He still used the words CREATE and GOD and also slammed science for wanted to prove or disprove God. That's not a rejection of God, that's an intelligent man who saw intelligence behind the universe and rules behind this intelligence. Rules that chance could not have brought about.

God, for us who believe, created us to live, procreate and die. This really means that when we are not procreating, we remain disciplined, not looking for the anus of a goat to bleep.

orisa37:
God, for us who believe, created us to live, procreate and die. This really means that when we are not procreating, we remain disciplined, not looking for the anus of a goat to bleep.

You didn't answer my question though, if you're against same sex cuz god created the penees for the vagyna do you have the same revulsion for anal sex between a man and a woman?